Carlo Scarpa
Connections in Design:
A Generic Attitude
by
Ellen C. Soroka
B.F.A. Pratt Institute
1973
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
of
Master of Architecture
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
February
1979
c Ellen C. Soroka 1979
Signature of Author
Department of Architecture
February
, 1979
Certified by
Stanford Anderson, Professor of Architecture
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by
Imre Halasz, Professor of Architecture
Chairman, Departmental Committee for Graduate Students
TEC
MAY
Abstract
Carlo Scarpa
Connections in Design: A Generic Attitude
Ellen C. Soroka
Submitted to the Department of Architecture on January 19, 1979,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Architecture.
The work of Carlo Scarpa, a contemporary Venetian Architect, has been the subject of much criticism
and adulation. At worst, he is considered to be an anachronism, "whose power lies in his creative use
of low level technology, and, his own awareness of the disintegration of those economical conditions
that have allowed his subjective poetry."I Others perceive his work to be so highly eccentric and
ornamental that classifying his work as architecture is a suspect endeavor. 2 As Manlio Brusatin says,
the critical literature on Scarpa has only served to create a legend of an architectural misanthrope. 3
Students at the University of Venice , where he taught until his death in November 1978, have said he is
either loved or ridiculed; generally the latter, perceiving his work to fall too far outside the norm.4
At best, he is revered as an uncompromising artist whose unique talent is rarely copied well and whose
work represents the best of Venetian artistry.
This study is meant to be more objective. As Brutasin says, "Scarpa is an architect of his time
and of a culture both vast and informed." 5 It is critically important to know something of the context
in which he has worked, his received influences and cultural surroundings, in order to appreciate the
richness of his work. It is also true that his attitude about form, though manifested quite personally,
is very much a part of modern architecture. His use of modern technology and building craftsmanship
presents, in effect, a critique of the modern movement. It also represents an attitude about form that
has further application than the Venetian roots from which it has developed.
1. M. Tafuri, "L'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui" #181, Oct. 1975
2. P. Joly, "Scarpa, L'Ornement est un Crime," L'Oeil #233
3. M. Brusatin, "Carlo Scarpa Architetto Veneziano," Controspazio March-April 1972. Much of this
article has been used as a reference for C. Scarpa's personal history.
4. Merine Picco (student at the University of Venice)
5. M. Brusatin, Controspazio, p. 2
Despite such articulated bafflement, Scarpa seems to be unilaterally respected for his exhibition
work and especially for his renovations of existing buildings: "such fluid plays between the old and
the new create an atmosphere that strengthens both." 6
This thesis has focused on two of his additions to pre-existing buildings, not only to illuminate
those qualities in his design work that succeed as architectural intervention, but also to find consistencies in his design that reveal a more generic attitude about form. His attention to the joining of
elements, spaces and materials has been.given the most attention because as he said in an interview I
had with him on September 5, 1978, "I am interested in fusing architectural components in such a way as
to develop a vocabulary, much as, for example, the capital became a physical demonstration of the joining
of a column to a lintel . . . but I use modern materials and modern manners."
The final objective has been to illuminate his generic attitude about form as much as two of his
works can realistically demonstrate. Beyond the identification of Scarpa's attitude about design, I
hope to have developed generalities that I and others might again apply to design. I have used comparisons to other architects' work only to distinguish those qualities about Scarpa's work that need qualification for the understanding of this analysis.
I have included a short biography (necessarily for lack of substantial information) to acquaint
the reader with those of his personal decisions that might explain large gaps in his executed buildings
and some of his stylistic influences that need be acknowledged. I hope anyone interested in understanding Carlo Scarpa will have reason to use this material as a source for their design development, or as
a point of reference for further study of any or all of-his work.
Thesis
Supervisor
Stanford Anderson
Professor of Architecture
6.
C. L. Ragghianti, "Crosera di Piazza di Scarpa," Zodiac #4 p. 128
Acknowledgements
I am deeply indebted to Stan Anderson for his unwavering
support and pointed criticism throughout the preparation of this
thesis and more importantly throughout my experience at M.I.T.
His honesty, thoughtful consideration and help have succeeded in
making me one of his greatest admirers.
I would also like to thank Richard Tremaglio and Maurice
Smith for helping me understand what I was really trying to do
and for their valued insights on the work of Carlo Scarpa.
Hank Millon deserves much gratitude for making my trip to
Italy possible, and Pino Tomasi for his generosity and help in
Scarpa's office and in Verona.
I'm grateful to D.L., Chris, Durg and all those that were
indispensable to my wading through thesis term.
And finally, this thesis is dedicated to the memory of
Carlo Scarpa, who was generous in spending so much time with me.
His work will sustain his memory.;
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
DESIGN
Introduction
Qualification of Terms
Received tradition
Modern Movement
Continuity
Differentiation
Reciprocity
Levels of built environment being discussed
Application
Querini Stampalia Library
Introduction
Analysis
Museum in Possagno
Introduction
Analysis
6
10
10
11
13
21
22
23
25
33
34
59
60
PERSONAL HISTORY
Biography
List of works and achievements
Visit .to Carlo Scarpa's Studio
86
97
102
CONCLUSION
107
BIBLIOGRAPHY
115
INTRODUCTION
I have always been interested in the range of scales in
- which an architect must think.
Before studying Architecture,
my experience in Sculpture was decidedly on a smaller scale
than I liked, but it was interesting to me then that a design
decision in one scale was often not appropriate for another.
Certainly this is true in Architecture.
The visual calamity
that occurs when a modern office tower sits next to a 19th
Century neo-classical building does not rest in the difference
in volume, but rather the differences in scale of building
fabric.
This has given some reason to feel, that the solution
to past modern architects' negligence, is treating the facade
of a new building as an extension of this older fabric, by
mimicking it. The other approach, with which we are all too
familiar, rejects any existing built vocabulary justifying
itself by self-claimed contradiction.
And then there are some,
whose interest in an existing vocabulary goes beyond the facade
and recognize that organizational patterns, material, etc.,
have as much to do with the quality of place as, the way a
building visually blends with an existing fabric.
When I first glanced through the issue of Space-Design 1977,
an issue devoted exclusively to the works of Carlo Scarpa, I
was intrigued with his demonstrated ability to solve the problem
of introducing modern materials into an old building.
Scarpa
says of this problem "By restauro is not meant only to repair
6
old buildings, our duty is rather to give them a new lease of
life so that we may be able to live today and tomorrow . . .
In architecture, all the existing buildings form part of the
matiere."
However, in visitng some of Scarpa's works: renova-
tions, additions and free standing work, it seemed clearer that
the way he joined new work to old, represented a more generic
attitude towards design which could be seen in his free standing
buildings as well.
Tadashi Yokoyama says in Space Design 1977 "In a number of
ways, I feel we can say that Scarpa couldn't have come from
anywhere but Venice.
While he turned to Wright for a supporting
pillar, he always had the Venetian tradition to fall back on
with its own artisan tradition for refined taste in details.
fact, his works wouldn't be his without these details.
In
I'd
even venture to say that all in all, his architecture was
possible only on the strength of a culture that was ripe.
Scarpa
is quite active in display space designing . . . all the fixtures
and other devices are designed separately to match the personality
of the objects on display.
The same background philosophy pene-
trates the alteration works he has performed for Olivetti and
the Querini Stampalia Library."
Arata Isozaki says in the same
issue, "The most commonly practiced architectural process today
is to first complete a conceptualized system to govern the whole
plan and then to work on the parts and details within the framework of the dictates of the overriding system.
But we note that,
in Scarpa's case . . . he uses the reverse method of leading the 7
connection of parts to form the whole.
This may be due to the
fact that, as a designer of furniture, utensils and displays,
he has formed the habit of seeking the starting line of thinking
in real objects he could touch with his hands.
That may be why
he was often regarded by architects as not being one of them.
What I mean is that the creations of Scarpa are built in areas
where one can only trust what the eye can see and what the hand
can perform, not in conceptualized spaces.
But one interesting
thing here is that, as a result of pathseeking, Scarpa, if unvoluntarily, is producing values that come very close to the
conceptual in certain ways, with some suggestive message for the
seeker of the conceptual."
I do not fully agree with this description of his design
approach, for I think, as I will demonstrate later, his schemes
are quite conceptualized, but the negotiation between parts is
not.
Secondly, the attitude towards joinery exists on all
scales; from the juncture of a window frame to a wall, the juncture of new materials to old, the juncture between spaces, to
the juncture between a new structure and an old building.
These
junctures, which I have termed negotiations, are really more of
a dialogue designed between separate elements.
The dialogue
sets up a mutual negotiation between spaces, materials, and
elements that results in a richly articulated vocabulary.
The
themes developed in his work can be identified as melodies that
operate separately at times, and at others, simultaneously.
It
is the multiplicity of readings his work generates that succeeds 8
in such highly sophisticated architectural intervention.
However, the dialogue he sets up in his renovation work (between
the new and the old) can also be seen in his free standing
structures, which the addition to the Canova Gallery in Possagno
will demonstrate.
What I want to illustrate is a very consistent
manner in the creation of these junctures that results in highly
sophisticated resolutions between spaces, parts and material.
DESIGN: QUALIFICATION OF TERMS
The two works of Scarpa's I have studied closely are works
completed towards the middle of his career as an architect.
The Gypsoteca in Possagno is an addition to a neo-classical 19th
Century basilica which houses the works of the noted eighteenth
century Italian Sculptor Antonio Canova.
This addition falls
at the end of Scarpa's "Wrightian period" (which ends in '57)
and will therefore be compared more closely with Wright than
the second project I have chosen to study: the Querini Stampalia
Library completed in '63.
The Library project is a first floor
renovation, with a remodelling of a courtyard in the rear.
Despite the differences in these programs, the objective will
be to draw parallels between the projects, seeking to demonstrate
an inclusive formal attitude.
It is often convenient to conform to chronology when studying
two different projects by one architect.
However, as I stated
earlier, one of the objectives in this analysis will be to isolate
those design decisions in his renovation work that succeed'in
allowing new built-form to co-exist with the old and to demonstrate that this attitude can also be seen in his free-standing
structures as well.
This attitude should be qualified more
specifically as an intent on resolving opposition or separateness,
whether that be between different spaces, different materials,
different structural systems, or programmatic differences,
through a lonalized negotiation that is specific to the things 10
being joined.
At the same time, each of these junctures are
part of a larger whole because of the way in which these are
continually being negotiated into the larger scheme.
The result
is a layering of readings, which is graphically clearer in the
Querini Stampalia Library.
Therefore, the analysis of the Gypso-
teca in Possagno will follow the analysis of the Querini Stampalia
Library.
Before discussing the actual projects, some of the terms
used later on should be defined.
The first group of terms
refer to Scarpa's culturally inherited or learned design tendencies.
In order to adequately describe the effect of his design
decisions, it is necessary to indicate the sources of these decisions in order to distinguish what Scarpa does differently.
Similarly, the terms I will use to describe the qualities found
in the effects of his design decisions should also be defined.
Scarpa was born in Venice, a city rich in Byzantine, Gothic,
and Classical architecture.
It would be a mistake to disregard
the probable impact of seeing so much of these traditions.
Secondly, it was noted earlier that Scarpa entered school at a
time when classical architecture, as seen in the ancient, was
receiving renewed attention, disregarding his aversion to such
academicism.
Formally, an interest in Classical architecture, strictly
speaking, generates solid and severely decorated buildings where
volumetric clarity is the objective.
Contours are unbroken,
orders are used and axes are straight and unbroken.
Scarpa's
answer to this tradition is to negate it.
For example, in the
Querini Stampalia Library the entry is recessed; the steps delivering the visitor to floor level are perpendicular to the door-so after entering one must turn right, step down and then turn
left to enter the room; the floor pattern of the lecture hall
continually breaks the natural axis from the front landing area
*to the garden; the water conduit again breaks another natural
axis from the'lecture hall to the garden; the glass wall recessed
within the column line of the back of the lecture hall is not only
off center, but skewed. (Fig. #16) Another example of reversing
classical tradition is found in the left front room where 'the
wall cladding meets the column and capital.
(Fig. # 9) He
overlays another archway of concrete on the existing archway
pulling the concrete back from the end of the column to reveal
it slightly, rather than making it flush, and punctures the
concrete to reveal the capital. Rather than making a positive
notation of the coming together of the arch and vertical support,
or, conversely as would usually occur in most modern treatment
of this condition--making no reference to it at all by covering
it up--he reverses the classical treatment by inverting this
juncture.
The result is a triple reading of this event.
He
calls your attention to the original condition which by itself
is not violated, he creates a completely new juncture which
stands by itself, and as a result the viewer is allowed to read
both simultaneously as a whole.
In the Possagno Gypsoteca, he
continually breaks what would be a natural axis from the front 12
end wall to the back glass wall with the location of the steps
to one side, yet having the wall they butt up against skew back
toward the center of this axis (Fig. #55); the solidity and neutrality of the double height cubic viewing room is broken at the
corners with corner windows of two kinds; at one end he intensifies the corner with cubic windows that are external to the
building--they sit on top of the wall and ceiling generating
direction to the outside, while the two at the other end are
rectangularly three dimensional and are recessed; the effect of
them being recessed challenges the edge definition of the solid
allowing the
outside
to enter in.
Both sets of windows give
direction to an otherwise simply uniform space.
Scarpa was noted as having a strong interest in the Viennese
Secessionists (particularly Joseph M. Olbrich), Henry Van de Velde,
Frank Lloyd Wright, Cubism (particularly Braque and Leger through
his contact with Martini, the sculptor) and later in his exhibition work an interest in Paul Klee and Piet Mondrian.
The most notable example of Olbrich's work in relation to
Scarpa may be seen in the Kunstler-Kolonie (1907) in Darmstadt
(a group of houses, a studio and exhibition halls for a group of
artists).
The tower of the exhibition building most closely
illustrates some of Scarpa's objectives.
The walls of unfaced
brick are broken up with mosaic and stone; the top of the tower
is faced with glazed scarlet tiles, while the roof is wooden,
covered with copper.
Olbrich's significance is found in his
ability to use a wide range of materials, creating wonderful
13
color variations, the result of which is a greater range of
surface juxtapositions.
Leonardo Benevolo says of Olbrich in
his History of Modern Architecture, "the novelty of Olbrich's
architecture lay in his choice of forms, but left technical
procedures and traditional organizational relationships unchanged;
it was a superficial reform that extended the repertoire of
eclectic culture without trying to force its conceptual boundaries." 7
Scarpa's use of color and ornament appears to be
more deliberately conscious of the three dimensional consequences
inasmuch as it visually refers to other three dimensional things
that are going on.
For example, in the Querini Stampalia Library
the floor material of the lecture hall is extended up the walls
for about 21 inches.
(Fig. #20)
However, on the other side of
one of these walls the floor level is 21 inches higher than
the floor level of the lecture hall.
In this case he is marking
this event.
Perhaps it is in Van de Velde's strongly individual position
within the Belgian Art Nouveau and the German Werkbund, contrasting his own opinions with Victor Horta in Belgium and Muthesius
in Germany that Scarpa took an interest in Van de Velde.
In the
first case Van de Velde felt the Art Nouveau movement should
have taken a stronger revolutionary position than striving for
newness which he perceived could be ephemeral.
He wanted to
develop a more fundamental change by challenging the basic tenets
7. History of Modern Architecture, Leonardo Benevolo, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1971, v. I, p. 290
14
of past education in architecture--developing new theories that
were based on sound judgement and reason and not simply reactionary.
Benevolo quotes Van de Velde8
"If we were to attain it
we must begin by clearing away those obstructions which the
centuries had accumulated in our path, stemming the inroads of
ugliness and challenging every agency that corrupts natural
taste .
. . I firmly believed I could achieve my ends
.
.
.
by
virtue of an aesthetic founded on reason and therefore immune
to caprice."
In Germany he argues with Muthesius in 1914 standing
for individuality in the arts where Muthesius stood for standardization as the basis of architectural culture.
Muthesius by saying
He responded to
"As long as there are artists in the Werkbund
. . . they will protect against any proposed canon and any standardization.
The artist is essentially and intimately a passionate
individualist, a spontaneous creator.
Never will he submit to a
discipline forcing upon him a norm and a canon."
Van de Velde's
forms are too curvilinear to be comparedwellwith Scarpa's, whose
forms are generally very rectilinear and cubic.- Mackintosh would
make for a better formal comparison, which does not mean to say
that Scarpa's attention focused only on Van de Velde--but he did
mention him as an important influence.
Scarpa has most often been compared with Frank Lloyd Wright,
for as mentioned earlier, his introduction to Wright was reinforced
8. History of Modern Architecture, Benevolo, Leonardo, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass. 1971 v. I pp. 272-275
9.
Ibid
15
by an actual Wrightian movement at the University of Venice.
The parallels drawn between the two have concentrated generally
1 0 without trying to get at
on Scarpa's use of Wrightian motifs
the similarity and differences in their over-all objectives.
Perhaps the most basic parallel between the two is their
destroying "box-like" spaces--creating instead a flow between
However, they succeed in this quite differently. There
is more reinforcement of the whole flow with each part in Wright's
work. Each part is a separate reinforcement of the whole reading,
spaces.
leading to a unification of all parts.
In Scarpa's work, his
creation of a flow is not as straight forward. Three themes,
which I will take up later, operate both separately, and in conHe differentiates parts, spaces, materials, colors by, for
lack of a better word, framing them. He thereby calls your
attention to their own uniqueness by forcing you to pause and
cert.
At the same time, each part is joined
to other parts with another set of components that create a flow
between them. At times this is done literally (i.e., in the
Querini Stampalia Library, the front three rooms are united with
observe its separateness.
the use of an elevated platform lined with a raised moulding
that visually says--these rooms are to be read as a front zone).
However, the very nature of this platform is clearly different
than being read as a floor; rather, the separation from the walls
--revealing -the original floor level, reinforces the integrity,
10.
M. Brusatin, "Carlo Scarpa, Architetto Veneziano," Contro16
spazio March-April, 1972.
of this platform as a separated element.
(Fig. #20)
The
tension that results between the platform and existing building
allows one to read both as separate events--but the uniting of the
three rooms recognizes the building as a-whole and creates a
continuity.
The last theme which I call interpenetration is-
really the result of this differentiation and continuity working
together but creates a third reading by having to read them
separately and then together.
Frank Lloyd Wright was also interested in harmonizing
the inside/outside relationship between a building and its outside.
The horizontality of his Prairie house has always been
referred to as an example of this.
His window treatments at
corners, for example in the dining room of the Freeman house in
L.A. (1962), the corner becomes a three dimensional window
bringing the inside out.
Similarly, in the Gypsoteca in Possagno,
Scarpa reinforces this inside/outside relationship with corner
windows in the double height gallery--however, where Frank
Lloyd Wright would probably uniformly treat all corners the
same way--Scarpa reverses two of the windows -literally making
note ofthe outside coming in.
The end glass wall is another
example of this inside/outside reading:
the glass visually
asks one to go beyond the edge definition and read the outside
as an extension of the inside. Wright has always been referred
to as an architect who unified the relationship of building and
ground. The horizontal forms of his prairie houses refer to
the horizontality of the ground.
In the Possagno Gypsoteca,
17
Scarpa refers to the topographical change from the Canova
Memorial on top of the hill to the end of the basilica by
respecting this change.
Where the basilica floor level remains
uniform, creating an abrupt difference in ground level and floor
level at the back, Scarpa incorporates this topographical change
within his extension and actually amplifies this change.
He
puts a platform, which must be climbed when entering the extension, at the front end.
Levels flow gradually downward from
this level, accessible by steps on the right, to the end glass
wall.
The roof of the extension also refers to this change as
it steps down in accordance with floor changes.
One striking difference between Scarpa and Wright can be
seen in their use of material.
Where Wright believed in using
materials pragmatically where ornament was seen as a derivative
of the nature of the material, Scarpa mixes and plays with materials making one aware.of their separateness through the use of
collage.
Perhaps his influence from Olbrich played a larger
role in his attitude toward material.
Scarpa creates collages
with his materials--but the intent seems to be in making one
aware of its structural integrity as a material and not simply
as ornamental display.
The final similarity in objective between Scarpa and Wright
is their focus on the destruction of object-like spaces.
Both
chose simple rectilinear forms, cubes and rectangles, and then
proceeded to dissolve their object-like qualities.
The difference
is found in the manner in which they achieve this breakdown.
18
Where Wright's choice of materials are consistently used throughout
the building creating a continuous fabric of smaller rectilinear
components that together reinforce the reading of the whole.
Scarpa juxtaposes different materials that play off one another
and amplify their individuality.
Though Wright breaks down the
relationship of inside and outside, he achieves this with components, forms and spaces that are quite regularized.
The symmetry
of his forms, especially in his earlier work, is rarely broken
and the breakdown form inside to outside is achieved with relationships that are symmetrical.
Scarpa consistently breaks
axes, symmetry and relationships that are regularized.
Through
Scarpa's simultaneous differentiation of parts and creation of
a continuity between parts, the breakdown from inside to outside
results in a reciprocity from inside to outside and outside to
inside.
Continuing with Scarpa's identified influences brings us to
George Braque and Fernand Leger.
George Braque was part of the
Cubist movement, and particularly active during the second phase
of Cubism with the introduction of the technique known as
collage.
George Braque's Le Courrier (1913) is an example of
this new found technique where the picture no longer was a window
through which one looked but a tray on which pieces of material
are put.
Dimension is not created with perspective and fore-
shortening but rather with the overlapping of layers of material.
The role of a collage of material scraps on which paint is
applied serves two roles:
the placement and combination of
19
shapes which are then painted and part of a designed image which
they represent, but their original integrity as separate pieces
is still maintained.
This attitude is clearly visible in Scarpa's
work where the assemblage of different pieces and materials
together creates a whole image--but the way in which these pieces
are three dimensionally separated from one another forces us
to appreciate their integrity as separate elements.
Fernand
Leger was influenced by Picasso and Braque, but his work is more
closely linked to the Futurists in his reflection of modern life
and modern technology.
His forms are more clearly geometric,
as seen in his The City (1919).
Scarpa's attitude towards
modern technology (see personal history) is less reverential.
In fact, his use of pre-fabricated parts is infrequent and when
they are used, one is made very aware that he is using a prefabricated component through the juxtaposition to other handcrafted components.
The intention seems to be tongue-in-cheek
delivering an ironical use of a modern technological invention.
Piet Mondrian is classified as part of the Dutch De Stijl
because of his non-representational work which he called "neoplasticism."
His goal as he asserted was "pure reality" which
he defined as equilibrium through the "balance of unequal but
equivalent opposition." 11
The field like quality of his paintings
rests in his feel for assymetrical balance which inspired and
influenced a number of architects.
11.
Certainly Scarpa's sense of
Janson, H. V. History of Art, Abrams, Inc., New York,
p. 256
20
design seems to have been affected by this "balance of unequal
but equivalent oppositions."
The extension of the Gypsoteca
in Possagno most clearly illustrates this in volume.
The exten-
sion is equally weighted against the existing basilica in volume,
choice of material and dimension, but the juncture between the
two allows for the two to co-exist gently without competing
for attention.
This will be taken up again at length later on.
A short discussion of terms used to describe the effects
achieved by Scarpa follows.
It is important to qualify these
terms because they are general and could be applied to other
architects' work having no relationship to Scarpa.
I've used the term continuity to apply to Scarpa's projects
where there is a flow between spaces, materials and over all
conception.
For example, in the Querini Stampalia Library,
Scarpa faced the right third of the building (from the front
*entry to the garden), parts of the middle front room, and the
left front room with thin travertine slabs that are attached
to the walls with metal ties leaving a two inch air space
between the old wall and the travertine.
In addition, the tra-
vertine slabs do not run continuously from wall to wall, but
are pieces that are interrupted with spaces between each slab,
allowing one to see the air space behind the slab.
(Fig. #10)
The effect achieved is a linear continuity from room to room.
Because of the separation of the second layer of slab (which is
deliberately revealed by separating each slab from one another)
one is also forced to question the actual surface of the wall
21
(i.e., is it the travertine layer, or the original-wall surface
beneath?).
Another example is his use of an elevated platform
which unites the three front rooms and the right third portion
of the building, the effect of this elevated platform extends
the nature of restricted path-movement which we all associate
with Venice with its narrow streets and bridges over canals.
This is quite different than the kind of continuity found in
Mies van der Rohe's Crown Hall where the perception of the whole
has more to do with the standardization of parts, and space
that is undifferentiated.
This is also quite different than the
cardboard architecture of Peter Eisenman where continuity is found
in the rejection of the structural role of parts, the choice
ofwhite for all surfaces, achieving an abstraction of flow between
surfaces, volumes and parts making them bleed together.
The
sameness that is seen in Mies' work, in the uniformity of space
and parts, and in Eisenman's work in the treatment of material
as plastic, is different than the devices Scarpa uses to create
continuity.
His devices, as in the example of the platform in
the Querini Stampalia Library, are consciously articulated as
something which is separate from the existing building.
Yet the
role it serves is to link the rooms it occupies.
I've already mentioned a number of times the extent to
which Scarpa underlines the difference of parts, spaces, etc.,
in maintaining their integrity as separate elements.
This
differentiation is quite different than Wright's work where parts,
spaces and structural elements are differentiated but in a way 2 2
that serves to create a continuous flow and reinforce the reading
of the whole, while in Scarpa'swork, each element is part of
a collage which serves to make one more aware of its individuality.
Interpenetration was defined earlier as the result of continuity
and differentiation working in concert, however, it should be
further qualified.
Maurice Smith of MIT suggested that a better
reference to this condition is reciprocal continuity: where A
and C share B, but B should not be seen as a linear transition
between A and C but rather B directs A to C, and reciprocally,
B directs C to A. B then becomes something in its own right.
This is quite different than the kind of interpenetration found
in the Baroque where parts interlock, creating a flow between
spaces that allows two different spaces to flow together, while
still being read separately.
The difference is found in the
lack of a buffer, or slack space as Maurice Smith has termed it,
which exists by itself and serves to reinforce the definition
of spaces, parts, etc., as separate identities that are being
joined.
For example, in the Library, the platform that runs
through the front three rooms unites them, making them read as
a zone, but it is clearly a separated element by virtue of its
Fig. '1 Plan of
Vierzehnheiligen
being pulled away from the walls.
In the Baroque, for example,
in the plan of Hildebrandt's Vierzehnheiligen (1743) (Fig. # 1)
A would have commonalities with B allowing one to read A and B
as one, and as two separate spaces, but the lack of something
in between, further reinforcing the distinction between the two
while simultaneously giving direction from one to the other, is 23
the condition that continually appears in Scarpa's work.
Another example of these three conditions working in concert
can be seen in the column wall between the basilica and the edge
concrete wall of the Gypsoteca in Possagno.
The column wall
acts as a screen between the heaviness of the stone wall of
the basilica and the reinforced concrete wall of the Gypsoteca.
At the entrance to the Gypsoteca the column wall begins as a
series of columns, which becomes filled with glass and then
-changes to masonry.
The masonry extends outside the glass end
wall of the Gypsoteca and column wall, furthering the objective
of an inside/outside relationship achieved with the glass end
wall.
Continuity is found in the structural role of the column
wall which runs the length of the extension.
The introduction
of glass halfway down followed with masonry fill within this
frame breaks the reading of this frame as a screen.
Secondly,
the masonry fill challenges one's reading of the structural role
of the frame because of its own load carrying capacity.
The
extension of the masonry fill outside the envelope further
challenges the reading of the frame as load bearing.
It appears
as if the stone wall has been sheared from the interior making
the column wall appear light and impermanent.
This is very
different from the temporal role of architectural components
as space definers in the De Stijl where the intent is literally
to be able to make different space definitions with parts that
move.
In Rietveld's Schroeder House, for example, the windows
and other parts are meant to be moved around, challenging the
24
idea of the volume as enclosed space.
The fact that these parts
are meant to open up and move about--creating as a result different
spatial relationships, is different than the permanence found
in this column wall which only appears to be of temporal nature
through the juxtaposition of different materials.
After having identified the sources and terms which will
be repeatedly used in the discussion of the Querini Stampalia
Library and the Gypsoteca in Possagno that follows, the architectural components and devices that Scarpa has used to achieve
the above conditions, should be identified and defined.
A zone is an area which is smaller than a building and
larger than a room.
It can be identified by the way in which
materials, level changes, envelope definition, structural components, color, texture, and spaces work separately and/or in
concert.
For example, as mentioned earlier, the extension of
the quality of outside space within the Querini Stampalia Library
through the use of a raised floor level
which is pulled away
from the existing structure and further defined with raised stone
moulding renders the front loading area as a more public area
than the right hallway leading to the garden (which is further
interrupted with a small raised landing).
The right hallway is
another kind of zone because after this raised obstruction all
the service units are consolidated.
In the Gypsoteca in Possagno
the column wall marks the edge of a zone between the basilica
and this column wall, even though part of this zone is outside;
the glass wall that separates the inside from the outside allows 2 5
one to read the space as a continuous whole.
A zone serves to
establish a continuity between different spaces--in the case
of the Stampalia Library the platform joins the front end.rooms
and the right third corridor and in the case of the Gypsoteca
this zone serves to reinforce the reading of inside/outside
continuity as well as serve as a buffer space between the extension and the basilica.
A buffer space
can be a zone as in the above mentioned
case or it can be a designed space between two built conditions
as in the space between the platform, of the Querini Stampalia
Library, and the wall in the entry lobby. It can also be a built
condition as the combination of level change, radiator, and
glass wall is in the middle front room of the Library. A
buffer space creates the necessary slack between two different
things, allowing them to share commonalities with one another
by virtue of this buffer space in between, and still remain
separate. A buffer space can also be a reveal exemplified by
the space between the travertine slabs that clad the walls in
the Library, or the space between the second reinforced archway
that is superimposed on top of the existing archway in the left
(Fig. #9 ) The cutouts in the
end front room in the Library.
reinforced concrete second archway that expose the original
capitals is a frame.
Level changes serve multiple purposes in both of these
projects.
In the Gypsoteca the level changes fragment the reading
of the first entry room but serves to unite it with the second 26
double height gallery space.' The change in level from this first
entry room to the end of the Gypsoteca further breaks down
the reading of this space as a whole creating as a result,
Level changes also serve as transitional devices
different zones.
as in the case of the level changes between the platform and the
lecture hall floor in the middle front room of the Querini
Stampalia Library.
Floor mouldings serve as definition, as in the raised
moulding around the platform of the three front rooms of
the Querini Stampalia Library, which reinforce the reading of
the platform as a separated architectural element, rather than
serving traditionally as a transition between a floor meeting
a wall.
Floor mouldings also create continuity between spaces,
as the black moulding against the white walls of the Gypsoteca
in Possagno.
Material again serves multiple functions.
The reinforced
concrete wall of the Gypsoteca in Possagno extends the territo,
riality of the basilica with a material that is equally weighted.
Material can also generate continuity between spaces.
For example,
the thin travertine slabs that clad the walls of the Querini
Stampalia Library, and separated from one another enough to reveal
the existing walls as well as the consistency of material,
develops a linear continuity from room to room.
The juxtaposition
of different materials can serve to fragment the reading of a
wall, floor, or space, as in the lecture hall of the Library
where the concrete floor is interrupted with thin strips of
stone, or the concrete walls are interrupted with strips of
brass.
Texture is an integral factor in the reading of this
space.
The concrete floor texture is rough and the fact that
it extends up the walls for about 21 inches, interrupted by the
same strip of stone used in the floor pattern where it meets
a smoother grained concrete, challenges the reading of where
the wall begins and floor ends.
As mentioned before, this
marks the floor level on the other side of one of these walls.
Material juxtaposition, therefore, often serves as the marking
of a spatial event.
For example, the tile pattern of the front
lobby space of the Library, is the only room where this tile
pattern appears.
This obviously marks this space as something
special, and as the lobby is not only an entry but a pivotal
point between the front loading zone and the right end hallway
zone, this marking seems to be appropriate.
One might be tempted
to read this lobby space as a separate and unique space if it
were not for--the way Scarpa incorporated a raised platform which
is pulled away from the wall and articulated further with a raised
floor moulding which as discussed earlier, unites this room with
the two front rooms.
In addition to fragmenting and marking,
material change can also extend the edge definition of a volume.
This was already talked about in the Gypsoteca where the masonry
fill in the column wall extends outside the envelope, and the
glass end wall invites further reading of the extension to the
outside.
Patterns, involving a change in material, are used at times 2 8
to dissolve the object-like quality of volumes, walls or surfaces,
as well as create a juncture to something else.
For example,
the cladding around the radiator, in the middle front room of
the Library, is a highly desigend pattern of concrete and glass
which forces one to question the whole as a self-contained
volume.
However, it also, as mentioned before, notates the coming
together of the floor material and the glass wall it meets. The
floor and wall pattern of the lecture hall in the Library not
only asks one to question the traditional meeting of a floor
to a wall, but it also serves to break up the straight axis
within.
The glass brick pattern, found within the masonry
fill wall of the Gypsoteca, again challenges the reading of this
wall as a solid.
Corner cutouts
work.
is a device frequently used in much of Scarpa's
One might say he intensifies corners by giving them a
direction or, it might be said he challenges the reading of the
object-like quality of the volume, by giving it direction and
thereby uniting it with its surroundings.
same thing.
I think they mean the
I spoke of reversing Classical treatment before.
This seems to-be another example of this reversal.
Rather than
making corners, junctures, or connections positive, by embellishing
them with a positive solid (as a capital, cornice, pedestal, etc.,
exemplifies) he creates a negative space which accomplishes the
same objective.
It intensifies the juncture.
This can be seen
at the right end corner of the viaduct where it is embellished
with a change in material shaped into a cube with one quarter of
29
it cut out.
The same change of material can be seen in that
which it meets.
Water is a theme repeatedly used in many of Scarpa's
projects.
Because of his description of his use of water in
the Cemetary Brion-vega, it seems to be imbued with symbolic
meaning, which I don't feel prepared to discuss in the case of
either the Library or the Gypsoteca.
how I have read it.
I can only make note of
In the Gypsoteca, the act of travelling down.
from the entrance of the extension to the end of it, where a glass
wall defines the end of the envelope, water appearing on the
other side serves to extend this feeling of moving down into the
ground.
In the case of the Library, water appears in three places
within the garden.
A fountain appears on the left after coming
out of the lecture hall or right end room.
From the level of
the lecture hall one must climb a series of levels before reaching
the level of the fountain.
The viaduct, which as mentioned before,
abruptly ends the outside zone of the lecture hall, serving to
define this zone, appears to carry the water from the fountain
to a cistern, which appears on the right after coming out of the
lecture hall.
fountain.
Yet this cistern shares the same level as the
One can't help be reminded of Venice, with its
water-ways and canals when looking at this composition.
The
viaduct seems to repeat the feeling of the canal which fronts
the Library--as it is parallel with it. Secondly,
the act of
breaking the axis from the lecture hall with raised viaduct
that is perpendicular to this axis, and having to turn to the
30
left and travel up and around it to get to the garden behind it,
perpetuates this feeling of circuitous path-making that is
unique to Venice.
The artificial landscape begun in the front
of the Library with the raised platform is thereby.extended
into the garden.
Scarpa's repeated references to creating a
sympathetic ambience to the place or people for which he designs
is reinforced with this created landscape.
Scarpa uses screens in a double fashion.
They serve as
edge definitions, as in the case of the screened archways of
the facade of the Library, or the column wall of the Gypsoteca.
They also establish a relationship
an inside/outside reading.
to the outside developing
The screened archways of the Library
literally let the water, at high tides, come into the front middle
room and they also let one see outside.
The column wall of the
Gypsoteca, because of its light quality, lets the stone wall of
the basilica weigh against the reinforced concrete wall of the
Gypsoteca and it allows one to read the outside space as part
of the inside space.
Scarpa's use of windows, or openings, particularly in the
Gypsoteca, both in placement and form, is another case of his
challenging the reading of the whole, whether that be a space,
wall, or roof.
In every case, within the Gypsoteca, the use of
window treatment succeeds in dissolving the solid.
The corner
windows of the double height gallery space has already been discussed earlier.
The glass end wall, though it was mentioned
before, should be discussed further.
Rather than meeting the
31
roof in a straightforward fashion, it travels up beyond the
roof level and then turns meeting a support on top of the roof.
This three dimensional treatment of this wall further amplifies
the suggestion of extending the inside to the outside.
It also
puts the roof line into question, dissolving the nature of a
continuous surface.
This is also achieved where the roof level
changes above the second set of steps--where the roof is punctured
with a set of skylights that are perpendicular to the ground,
marking this change of level.
Also, the skylight above the
relief hung against the existing basilica wall challenges the
reading of the roof as a continuous surface.
The use of glass
in the column wall is interesting because not only is it a change
in material, but the window framing that is separated from the
column by a piece of continuous glass displays this frame as a
frame, making note of it as a separate component and not simply
serving a structural and weather-proofing role.
The meeting of
the glass fill within the column wall and the glass wall that
breaks the zone between the column wall and the Gypsoteca in
half, is another case of his throwing the solid into question.
The Querini Stampalia Library (1961-63), Venice
After having qualified all terms, it is now possible to
begin discussion of both projects by themselves and finally
together.
Some of this disucssion has already been started with
the illustration of terms, but will be discussed-in more detail
and in relation to each project as a whole.
The Querini Stampalia Library in Venice, which faces the
Campo Santa Maria Formosa--separated from it by a canal which
must be crossed in order to enter the Library, houses a public
library, an art gallery and a Government institute.
The exact
date of the original palace, which is now the Library, is not
clear.
Elena Bassi in Palazzi di Venezia makes note of a
palace designed for Francesco Querini Stampalia in -1660 but G.
Mazzariol in his article entitled "Un Opera di Carlo Scarpa"
in Zodiac #13 says the Library was originally a Gothic palace.
The original palace layout is a typical Venetian palace
design with a tri-partite composition; a boat landing at the
_*\
center which leads into a front middle room (with end rooms on
either side of it) and a larger hall behind it.
On either side
of the center entry room and larger hall, are smaller rooms,
often symmetrically lined up which occurs in the original
Fig. 2 Querini Stampalia
Library(dark grey) within
it's context in Venice.
The Campo Santa Maria Formosa is across the canal.
Stampalia palace layout.
(Fig. #16)
Scarpa's rearrangement of the original palace involved: .a
new entrance,, created by enlarging one of the right hand windows
.on the ground level, a piazza which faces the entrance on the
33
other side of the canal, a new bridge which connects the piazza
and the entrance, new ground floor quarters (a new lobby, a
renovation of the middle boat landing area, the creation of a
little room for meetings on the other side of the middle room,
a lecture hall directly behind the middle loading room, a new
cladding of all the walls--which exuded dampness--with travertine
slabs and brickwork, a redesigning of the right end hallway-which now serves as the primary access to the garden when the
lecture hall is closed, the creation of containing tunnels which
hold back the water from the canal in high tide and the raising
of a platform in the area).
Lastly, a reorganization of the
garden behind the palace with landscape changes,-a fountain,
a water conduit and a cistern.
This is only a first floor
renovation--though the staircase leading up to the library has
been covered with additional stone and the walls cladded with
L
4
L
travertine.
.
Fig. 3 Facade of the
Querini Stampali-a Library
from the small piazza
facing it across the
bridge.
(Fig. # 8 )
Scarpa has succeeded in creating a series of transitions
from public space to private space, if the garden can be read
as ultimately the most private space in the complex.
transitions have been achieved in a number of ways.
These
The elevated
walkway that connects the front three rooms, by virtue of its
elevation and its articulation (by pulling it away from the wall
and circumscribing it with a raised moulding) extends the public
quality of pedestrian movement (which in Venice is quite
restricted) into the interior of the building--bringing therefore,
the outside into the building.
(Fig. #18)
This is set up by 34
having to cross the canal over the bridge he designed.
With the
addition of the elevated walkway running through the front
three rooms, one feels as though the bridge is brought into
the building.
This is further reinforced in the middle front
room with small rectilinear volumes that graduate down from the
platform-to the archways (which were originally designed as
openings for gondolas) giving a sense of an artificial topography which graduates down towards the water.
The quality
rendered to these front three rooms by the platform is very
public suggesting they should be read as a public zone.
However, both the middle front room and the lobby space visually
connect to the garden in the back.
The wall cladding found in the entry lobby and the left
end meeting room is interrupted with brickwork cladding in
the middle front -room--distinguishing this room formally-.which begins to set up a formal axis from this middle room to
the garden (Fig. # 4)--further reinforced by the use of the
two glass walls which define the edges of the lecture hall-allowing one to visually connect to the garden from this middle
room.
Fig. 4 Elevated walkway
running through middle and
left end front rooms.
Despite this implied axis, Scarpa- does everything to
negate it. For example, by shifting the front entrance, from
the middle of the ground floor facade, to the right third of
the building he negates the importance of this axis.
Secondly
the floor pattern of the lecture hall serves again to break
the creation of a formal axis.
The glass wall that is recessed
from the column line is skewed, and the doorway to the garden
35
is off-center.
Rather what these two glass walls accomplish
is the creation of a series of transitions from the front to
the back with transparent layering--allowing one to visually
connect to the garden while still maintaining the separateness
of each room.
The lobby is also part of a circulation zone (a corridor
.runs through the right third of the building connecting the
front entrance to the garden) which includes a stairway to the
library on the second floor, an elevator, 'a doorway--in the
last end room--connecting to the lecture hall, and the entrance
to the garden.
The fact that the lecture hall is most often
closed suggests that this corridor is meant for primary circulation to the library on the second floor and as a second means
to the garden behind.
However when a lecture is scheduled,
part of the glass wall that separates the middle front room
from the hall turns into a sliding glass door.
Quite obviously
circulation from the front to the garden is developed through
the lecture hall, beginning by entering the middle front room,
spilling into the lecture hall below and out through the more
formal entran6e to the garden.
The creation of these two public zones diagramatically
the righen
orriore ansets
result in an "L" shaped
diagram of public circulation
up an L shape of public circulation. (Fig. # 5) This
serves to de-centralize the formality of the original diagram
of the palace.
The lowering of the floor level of the lecture
hall (about 21 inches below this L shaped circulation path) or
rather, the raising of this L shaped path further establishes
36
the lecture hall as a space performing a different function.
The corner of this L is distinguished, as a lobby and entrance,
and with a mosaic floor tile pattern that seems to announce
this space as a lobby.
Although the creation of these two zones is notable,
Scarpa succeeds in breaking up the reading of the zones as a
whole, by rendering each room with a different quality.
Entering the lobby from the bridge (Fig. # 6), the first
notable device is the recession of the doorway-which further
strengthens the reading of outside coming in.
Fig. 6 Entry from the
bridge. Lobby.
The stairway
from the doorway landing is parallel with the bearing wall,
rather than being perpendicular to it, so that one must turn
to the right once inside the door.
The last level of the
stairway runs into the moulding which surrounds the platform
(which becomes the new floor level), so that one must turn
again to the left before actually standing in the room at
floor level.
The turning to the left is further suggested by
the step before the last being diagonally sliced (rather than
running perpendicularly to the direction of the stairway)
which suggests turning to the left.
The wall cladding is of
travertine slabs which are separated from the existing walls'
by air spaces.
In addition, each of these slabs are separated
slighted from one another setting up an inconsistent rhythm,
Fig. 7 Picture of archways
leading to the front zone
(on the left) and the right
corridor (on the right)
taken from the lobby.
which is further broken down by the cutouts in the travertine
revealing amenities such as a water line and a brass door which
covers an electrical unit.
The wall cladding is significant
because in the corner where one would expect the slabs to break
to reveal the original corner, Scarpa darries the travertine
around the corner and breaks the travertine about three feet
from the corner.
(Not visible in the drawing.)
From this entry lobby, one can either turn to the left,
entering the middle front room, or right, to enter the corridor
to climb the stairs to the library or to continue through to
the garden. The casual visitor would have a choice, but because
the library is only accessible by going down the corridor, everyday public use is suggested by continuing the travertine slab
wall cladding down through the corridor as well as the walls
of the stairway.
The corridor is broken in two places: a
small landing appears after the stairway (having to climb two
steps to get onto the landing and one step down to continue
down through the corridor) followed by a metal framed glass
door which closes off the end room of this corridor from the
corridor, effectively making the garden inaccessible to the
public when the administration so chooses.
Fig. 8 Stairway leading
up to the Library on the
second floor.
These obstructions
serve to break the continuity developed through the use of
travertine slab wall cladding, however the visual continuity
is maintained by the transparency of the glass door.
The
stairway, leading up to the library on the second floor, is
covered with stone slabs with small cutouts which frame the
original stairway underneath.
The exposure of the original
stairway suggests a triple reading: the old stairway is acknowledged as something separate from the new stairway on top
38
of it, and yet the result is the reading of both systems
working together as one. (Fig. #8 )
Turning left into the middle front room from the lobby
one ismade aware of the three rooms being connected by the platform that travels through them, serving to read 'the three as
a zone.
(Fig. #21)
Yet, after entering the middle room, the
wall clad in brick distinguishes this room from the entry
lobby, making one aware of its specialness.
The brick cladding
is separated from the archways by a thin buffer space that
allows the new material to co-exist with the old.
The number
of sculptural elements found within this room invites closer
study.
The level changes on either side of this elevated
platform operate as three dimensional transitional devices to
levels below on either side.
On the side facing the canal,
these rectilinear volumes that graduate down to the original
floor level below seem to anchor this platform to the existing
building as well as poetically suggest a water bank.
In fact,
water, at high tide, seeps in through the metal screen, within
the archways, and at times covers some of the lower volumes.
The other side of the platform graduates down, with level changes
that move in and out, rather than being uniformly straight, to
the lower lecture hall floor.
Despite the artificial crest
that is created by levels graduating down from either side of
the platform, the platform is simultaneously joined to the
glass wall that separates the middle room from the lecture
hall by the patterned cladding around the radiator.
The cladding 3 9
around the radiator is composed of two materials: travertine
and glass.
Where openings in the travertine appear, glass is
filled in.
The effect of this patterning is twofold: the nature
of the materials suggests a sort of dance between the floor and
the wall which are composed of stone (of the same color as the
travertine) and glass respectively, the. patterning also serves
to break up the reading of the volume of the whole.
Rather
than this pattern disintegrating the whole as a solid, it
suggests a three dimensional negotiation between the floor as
a horizontal element and the wall as a vertical element.
This
seems to be the case because the corners are treated specially,
Fig. 9 Entry to the
left end room of the front
zone. Notice the drop in
floor level and the new
concrete archway with cutouts revealing the original
capitals.
intensifying the reading of the original volume.
Finally, the last room of the front zone is treated quite
differently than the first two.
First of all, this room is
meant to be used as a meeting room.
This special function is
notated by the floor level dropping about fourteen inches.
The platform extends into this room enough to unite it with
the first two, but it stops about two and a half feet once
inside the room.
Rather than putting steps at the end of
this axis created by the platform running through the three
rooms, Scarpa again puts the stairway parallel to the wall
(which is perpendicular to the axis of the platform), forcing
one to turn to the right to step down into the room, and then
turn left again to enter further into it.
Scarpa put a thin
concrete floor slab on top of the original floor, but rather
than having it butt up against all four walls, where it would 40
have met engaged columns at the far end wall, he pulls the
concrete slab away from the wall with a buffer space, allowing
.the columns and the new floor to co-exist.
(Fig. #10) The
patterning in the new floor again breaks an implied symmetrical
axis from the platform to these engaged columns as the line
running from the platform to the columns in the floor is off
center, slightly missing one of these columns.
The wall
cladding is similar in nature to the entry lobby wall cladding;
travertine again is used.
One significant difference is the
way Scarpa cuts out a portion of the new concrete archway,
Fig. 10 Left end meeting
room. Notice the new floor
slab pulled away from the
original engaged columns
and the patterning in the
floor.
which is juxtaposed against the original archway, to reveal
the original capital.
The reading of this is again multiple:
the original capital is not violated, a new inverted capital
is added, allowing one to read each separately and then
together.
(Fig. # 9 )
In the front lobby, the concrete archway
is punctured, but rather than revealing the entire capital,
he punctures the concrete above the line of the capital,
teasing one into the same kind of reading rather than doing
it directly.
(Fig. # 7)
The travertine cladding in the left
front room again covers the corner, breaking later on.
Cut-
outs in the travertine reveal additional amenities such as
two doorways and allowing beams to meet existing walls.
The room that remains to be discussed is the lecture
hall.
As mentioned before, one might be tempted to see the
middle front room and the lecture hall as a zone, which is easy
to do if one only looks at the plan, and the visual connection 41
to the garden from the front middle room.
However, the change
in floor level from the front middle room as well as the change
in floor level from the right corridor to the lecture hall distinguishes the hall as a different kind of space, and not to
be read as a continuum from the front middle room.
In addition,
the ground space directly outside the lecture hall, being on
the same level, is to be read as a spatial continuity from the
lecture hall by virtue of the viaduct defining the edge of this
space on one side, and changes in level (which take one up
to the higher level of the garden) on either side, further
defining the edge of this outside space.
Fig. 11 Lecture Hall
looking towards the middle
front room.
(Fig.
#25)
What is
finally achieved is the breakdown of this lecture hall as a
self-contained room.
Rather, both glass walls on either end
of the hall simultaneously define the end of the hall, while
opening up the reading of the hall to bring the outside in (with
the recession of the glass wall inside the column line) and the
inside out (with the continuity of the lecture hall floor
material and pattern to the space outside the column wall).
(Fig. #25)
The gradual change in level from the platform in
the front middle room to the lecture hall floor operates in the
same fashion.
It acts as a buffer space, allowing the platform
and the lecture hall floor to negotiate a commonality.
If
this level change were straight and uniform one would have to
read this transition as having a direction from the platform
Fig. 12
Lecture Hall,
entry to the garden,
to the lecture hall only.
But because of the irregularity
of this level change, the reading suggests a give and take in 42
both directions; from the lecture hall floor to the platform
and reciprocally, from the platform to the lecture hall.
(Fig. #25)
Th.is reciprocal continuity is a device that Scarpa
often uses when joining two different kinds of spaces, materials,
etc., as we'll later see in the Gypsoteca in Possagno.
The floor pattern in the hall (as mentioned before), breaks
up.the natural axis from the front to the garden.
This is
achieved with an irregular rectilinear pattern of stone strips
that break up the concrete slab flooring.
Rather than putting
continuous stone strips from the garden to the glass wall
separating the middle front room from the lecture hall, the
stone strips are broken with continuous strips running perpendicular to them.
These interruptions not only serve to break the
monotony, but the strips running between the garden and glass
wall are continually shifted creating, in effect, a diagonal
reading.
(Fig. #20)
In addition, the floor slab and stone
strips, running between both existing walls, are extended for
approximately 21 inches up the walls, which.challenge the edge
definition of floor meeting wall.
Travertine slabs meet the
extension of the floor material on the walls, which again are
interrupted by a brass rectilinear pattern, similar in nature
to the floor pattern.
The doorway, between the end room of
the corridor and the lecture hall, is designed to again negate
the reading of it as a door with a defined edge.
between the door and the floor.
A gap appears
The shape of the door, and
the shape of the opening for the door is irregularly rectilinear.
43
In addition, a cut out in the travertine wall and the door
which when closed forms a long rectilinear S shape, seems to
serve as another device to unite the two, rather than allowing
one to read the door as a separate element.
The result is
(when the door is closed) a negation of the notion that a
door separates one room from another, but rather, one reads
the whole as a patterned continuous surface.
(Fig. #24)
The end wall of the lecture hall (facing the garden)
was torn down leaving the columns.
Scarpa then recessed the
new entrance to the garden with a glass wall that is rectilinearly irregular.
He broke the formality of the original
column line by placing the glass doorway off center, and skewing
the entire glass wall. The result, as I've discussed, is the
suggestion of the outside coming in, and with the extension of
the hall's floor material and pattern to the outside, the
reciprocal reading of the inside going out.
(Fig. #25)
The
column line becomes a screen between the glass wall and the
raised viaduct (which defines the edge of this outside extension) which not only defines the edge of the original palace,
but creates a series of transparent layers which read as a
negotiation between the inside and outside, and between the
existing building and the new renovation. Had the glass wall
been straight, rather than broken, the reading would have been
one-directional from the inside to the outside. But this
broken glass wall suggests the outside pushing into the
interior resulting in this reciprocity.
4
The last of the project to be discussed is the remodelling
of the garden.
A typical feature found with most Venetian
Palaces, is a courtyard in the back, entered through the
central hall (which is not the lecture hall).
As I've men-
tioned before, Scarpa broke this formality by making the most
acbessible entrance to the garden from the right end room of
the corridor which is only a function of maintenance rather
than design, because in most cases, the lecture hall is not
open to the public, where as the right corridor is. However,
should one enter the garden from the hall, one finds a small
space outside the hall, on the same level, which appears to be
an extension of the hall to the outside because of the same
floor material and pattern.
This is abruptly ended with a
viaduct which runs perpendicular to the axis of the hall forcing
one to have to turn to the right (up a small staircase bringing
one to the same level as the right corridor where it exits to
Fig. 13
Garden; water
conduit articulates the
space immediately outside
the lecture hall.
Level
changes at the far end
achieve the same kind
of definition.
the garden) or to the left, up a series of levels after which
one must turn to the right where the fountain is and around
the viaduct.
The wall,
serving to define the edge of the left
side of the garden, breaks and turns direction, helping to
enclose the fountain. (Fig. #18) In addition, where this
break appears, Scarpa connects this break with' a cubic volume,
becoming a lower extension of the wall on one side and serving
to make this turn of direction more gentle. The openingbetween, allows one to see on the other side of this wall,
and the mosaic tile pattern strip that runs the length of the
45
entire wall (which occurs in the middle, breaking the wall in
half)
seems to mark the height of the volume which unites the
two, as well as serving to make it continuous.
To the right
of the fountain, most of the ground is grass covered, with exception of the edges meeting walls enclosing the garden.
The
back edge is lined with a geometric pattern which serves as
another transition from the grass to the wall, the interlocking
of dark and light L's is really a break up of a series of
rectangles with corners removed, the result of which is another
visual negotiation of the darker color of the ground, and the
light color of the wall.- The right edge of the garden is
broken down with layerings of enclosed areas of stone and dirt.
The most important formal device found within the garden is
Fig. 14
Garden;
geometric patterning
of the back end of the
garden can be seen in
the background. The
cistern and the water
conduit can be seen
in the foreground.
the viaduct.
It serves to break the direction from the lecture
hall as well as give the garden an implied direction that is
perpendicular to this axis.
Having to travel around the viaduct,
.which practically runs the length of the garden, forces a
restricted circuitous pathmaking through the garden.
This
seems to be another elaboration on his theme within the Palace.
It maintains the ambience found in Venice and within the first
floor renovation, making one forever aware of the kind of place
Venice is.
The area around the
Fig. "15 Map of Venice.
Querini Stampalia Library is circled with grey.
On the left - Plan of the original
Fig. 16
On the right - Plan of
Stampalia Palace.
the first floor remodelling by Carlo Scarpa.
48
Fig. 17 Axonometric
reconstruction of the
exterior of the Querini
Stampalia Library with
the garden in the rear.
49
Fig. 17A Axonometric
reconstruction of first
floor renovation of the
Querini Stampalia Library
Reconstruction
Fig. 18
of the first floor level
changes: a virtual landscape
Fig. 19 Dark grey (literal
or virtual bridges)
middle grey (extension
of restricted pedestrianmovement), Light grey
(mediators from one
area to another)
Striping (special
functions).
Fig. 20 Material Continuity.
Stone is used in the entry
stairway and the moulding circumscribing the
elevated platform, on the
platform in the front
middle and left end
rooms and on the level
changes from the front
of the Library to the
platform and from the
platform to the lecture
hall floor.
Concrete slab is used
as the floor material
in the lecture hall and
the meeting room.
Walls are clad with
Each
travertine slabs.
linear
a
material develops
continuity between spaces.
Fig.
21
Front end zone.
54
rig. zz meeting room.
.... ..
Fig. 23
Right end Corridor.
Fig. 24 Right end corridor
57
Middle zone:
Fig. 25
implied formal axis
from front middle
room to the garden,
negated by entry
to lecture hall
on the right,
patterning in
hall floor
and entry to
garden off
centred.
The Gypsoteca in Possagno (1957)
The second centennial of Antonio Canova's birth in
1957 became an opoortunity for the Superintendence of Fine
Arts in Venice to extend Canova's Gallery of Plaster Casts
in Possagno.
The new extension was intended to allow the
display of some of Canova',s original working models (in
display cases designed by Scarpa), some of the remaining
finished statuary not already in the existing gallery (a
19th century basilica), some of Canova's reliefs which had
been unearthed from his house, and a large statue of Theseus
requiring a double height gallery space.
Possagno, the birthplace of Antonio Canova, sits in the
Dolomite region of the Veneto, northeast of Verona, and is
Fig. 26
Canova Memorial on
top of the hill and site of
the Canova complex below; involves a thirty foot topographical change in level.
relatively hilly.
Both the existing museum (the basilica) and
the extension (called the Gypsoteca) are part of a large
complex which includes Canova's own house, administrative
offices, and a memorial (separated from the Canova complex by
a road and 350 meters as well as involving a thirty foot
level change from the memorial--on top of the hill--to the
Canova complex below.
(Fig. #26)
The site area intended for the extension was basically
a residual space on the west side of the basilica surrounded
Fig. 27
Drawing of the addition
by smaller structures and lined on its west side by a small
next to the basilica.
road. The significance found in Scarpa's addition is his
resolution of the differences in scale between these smaller
II
buildings and the larger scale of the basilica.
In addition,
rather than assuming one level, as the basilica does contrasting
greatly with the natural slope of the ground at the back,
Scarpa preferred to incorporate this topographical change
Another radical departure from the basi-
within his addition.
lica is the incorporation of natural lighting throughout the
Fig. 28
Plan of smaller
building torn down by Scarpa
is heavily penciled over
his plan of the new addition.
addition.
Scarpa tore down a smaller scale building which sat on
the west side of the basilica, but reused the basic plan and
extended it which resulted in a trapezoidal plan.
illustration #28.)
(See
He also kept part of the North wall of the
original smaller building, adding a riinforced concrete wall
where the double height gallery begins.
(See illustration #29.)
This reinforced concrete wall conforms to the original plan of
the smaller building torn down, but is then extended--forming
the west edge definition of the Gypsoteca.
Between this new
reinforced concrete wall, Scarpa separated the basilica from
the new extension by putting a metal frame wall parallel to
the existing basilica wall, however separating it enough from
the basilica to create a narrow passage between the two.
The
passage is cut in half by a glass wall, making part of this
Fig. 29. Heavy black represents
pre-existing buildings. The
new addition is outlined and
the buffer space between the
basilica and addition is
represented by the grey.
space between the two an inside space, and part of the passage
an outside space which is paved with the same dark and white
cobbles set in losenges that covers the flight of steps
leading to the Memorial on top of the hill.
Scarpa succeeds in resolving the scale differences
E
between the basilica and smaller buildings and the dramatic
topographical change between the level of the basilica and
the ground through the creation of a series of transitions.
The attitude towards resolving differences between spaces,.
materials and parts that is apparent in the Querini Stampalia
Fig 30
Section cut runnir g
North-South illustrates lE
changes incorporated in tI ~vel
e
addition.
Library, is the same attitude that, in the creation of an
entirely new structure, unified the differences between the
basilica and its surroundings, as well as allowed an entirely
new structure to co-exist with the basilica
than discord.
in harmony rather
(Fig. #27)
This resolution between the basilica and its surroundings
is achieved through the creation of another equally weighted
structure which acknowledges the natural slope of the ground
by incorporating this change within the interior of the
addition.
The act of balancing these two structures against
one another, in volume and material, as well as referring to
the change in slope by incorporating it with the extension,
Scarpa's addition becomes not only a negotiation between the
monumentality of the basilica (with its single interior space
and uniform floor level) and its surroundings, but exists as
an entirely separate structure with its own integrity.
Scarpa begins through the choice of materials; he expands
the quality of weightiness found in the stone material of the
basilica with the use of a thick wall of reinforced concrete.
This decision seems to expand the territory of the basilica
by extending the material vocabulary of the basilica with one
which is .similar (the basilica is heavy stone and the extension
is reinforced concrete but the nature of heaviness is the same).
The reinforced concrete wall serves to define a new edge definition of the entire gallery (the basilica and the addition).
(Fig. #50)
The new extended space is distinguished from the basilica
through the use of a buffer space and a screen. By putting a
metal frame column wall between the basilica and concrete
wall and by separating it enough from the basilica to allow
for a passage way of about four feet between the two, Scarpa
creates a buffer space between the column wall and basilica
wall. (Fig. #36)
The fact that half of this passage is inside,
but in half by a glass wall, and half outside, complicates
the reading of this passage even further, suggesting it is also
a zone because it unifies the inside and outside as well as
Fig. 31
Column wall begins
with a series of columns filled
later with glass and stone fill
Passage between the basilica
and the addition is shown
in the left portion of this
photograph.
serving to separate the basilica wall from the addition. The
scree#-like quality of the column wall is further reinforced
by filling it halfway down with glass and then with ivory
sandstone block. The structural role of the metal framework
is not only challenged with the addition of sandstone block,
which by itself could be load bearing, but the continuity
of the frame as a whole is challenged by its beginning as a
series of columns which are then interrupted with glass and
stone infill.
(Fig. #52)
The structural role of the metal
framework and its reading as a continuous load-bearing element
is further defied by extending this sandstone block infill
62
NOW-
outside, as if it were passing through the metal frame, becoming a free standing wall outside the building envelope.
This gesture articulates an interest in dissolving a severely
defined separation between inside and outside, making instead
the outside read as an extension of the inside, and reciprocally,
as we'll see in other cases, the outside seem as if it is being
brought into the building.
This theme is one which particu-
larly associates Scarpa with Wright, as well as his attention
to acknowledging the topographical change of the site in his
addition.
The disintegration of an edge definition is accomplished
in three ways:
the extension of inside to outside, the bringing
of outside to inside, and the more complicated act of having
both occur at once.
Scarpa used three dimensional windows
to accomplish the first two.
In the double height gallery
space on the west side of the addition, Scarpa used two different kinds of windows to. not only dissolve the corners at,
Fig. 32 Sandstone bl-ock
infill passes outside the
framework suggesting the
extension of inside to
outside. The three dimensional quality of the glass
end wall, by extending
beyond the roof line, reinPassageway
forces this.
between the basilica and
the addition is on the
right.
roof level, but intensified these corners by giving them
direction.
(Fig. #53)
On the east side of this cube-like
space, he put cubic glass windows which sit on top and outside
of the roof and wall which effectively generates a.diagonal
direction to the outside from the inside (Fig. #52) (as these
cubic windows protrude outside the roof and wall edge).
On
the west edge of this cubic room, Scarpa used rectangularly
three dimensional windows which invert, cutting the dimension
of the walls in'half, and literally bringing the outside in.
63
(Fig. #33)
Rain spouts which occur on the outside walls suggest
that the glass forming the bottoms of these rectangular boxes
are sloped enough to allow a runoff through the spouts.
(Fig. #54)
The roof of the addition changes level in two places; the
first change occurs where the double height gallery space
meets the main entry area, and the second change occurs midway
between the north and south walls (Fig. #53)--which refers to
the graduated level changes occurring at ground level.
This
second change in roof level is articulated with a line of
openings that.puncture the meeting of roof and wall, resulting
again in three dimensional cutouts which, because the actual
framing of glass occurs outside the wall and roof, protrude
externally.
The effect is an intensification of the meeting
of roof and wall--by giving it an external direction--making
the outside seem as if it is reaching up and out.
The quality
of light coming in however is somewhat diffused by virtue of
the glazing of this glass.
Fig. 33 Inverted west
windows.
The South end of the addition is both a glass wall and
a three dimensional window.
(Fig. #32)
The glass wall actually
extends beyond the roof level and turns perpendicularly to the
wall meeting a vertical support on top of the roof.
The effect
of this three dimensional glass ending amplifies the notion
of the inside space extending outside by giving it two directions:
a horizontal extension and a vertical extension.
It also
reinforces the external direction from inside to outside
suggested by the sandstone block infill extending outside
64
the metal frame east wall, and the reinforced concrete wall
on the west side that also extends beyond the edge defined by
the south glass wall.
The roof is broken in one other place.
Where the roof
of the main entry area actually meets the basilica, between
the column wall and the basilica, the roof is punctured with
a skylight that runs between the second and third column,
articulated underneath by a concrete trellis.
(Fig. #53)
The location of this skylight appears to be meant to illuminate the relief of Canova's hung directly beneath. it on the
basilica wall.
However, the effect of the concrete trellis
is screen-like, adding a three dimensional layer that not only
resolves the meeting of skylight to space beneath but gently
connects the wall, supported by the metal framing, and the
basilica, where the trellis actually sits on top of the
basilica moulding.
Fig. 34
South end wall:
becomes a three dimensional
window by extending beyond
the roof line.
The concrete trellis also screens the
amount of direct lighting brought in by the opening.
The glass wall cutting the buffer space in half,
between the basilica and column wall, illustrates the notion
of reciprocal continuity and/or the mutual exchange of inside
extending out and outside coming in.
The continuity suggested
by the continuous steel framing of the column wall, and the
continuous surface of the basilica wall creates a zone between
the two as I've discussed earlier.
(Fig. #52)
The cutting
in half of this zone by a glass wall complicates the reading
of interior versus exterior space by virtue of the outside.
space being defined with wall on either side making it
into an outside room that is also an extension of a zone articulated by the column wall which is begun on the interior.
Had the wall cutting this zone in half been opaque, the
passage between both walls would have still been a zone, but
one that is literally cut, making just an inside half and an
outside half.
But the glass wall negates a literal edge
definition and amplifies the notion of the inside extending
outside.
And, the outside half of the zone being articulated
.with wall on either side furthers the notion of the outside
being read as' a room.
The series of columns that begins the
column wall serves reciprocally to introduce the notion
of this wall travelling into the interior of the addition and
articulates the edge of this zone on the interior.
Fig. 35
Skylight running
between basilica wall and
the column wall.
The spatial
quality this series of columns renders to the interior is
screen-like--creating a continuity from this zone to the rest
of the addition while still articulating the area between the
basilica and the columns as a buffer space which also separates
the basilica and the addition while allowing them to flow
together.
Finally, the openness of this column line makes
the interior half of this zone seem like outside space and
the closure, created by the metal frame filled with glass
and sandstone block on one side of the passage and the basilica
wall on the other, seem like an outside room.
Fig. 36
Buffer space
between the basilica
and the addition.
The continuity expressed by the use of reinforced concrete on the west side of the addition is interrupted by an
6
Now
opening, from floor to ceiling-(Fig. #37),
which marks the
meeting of the south wall of the double height gallery space
and the continuation of the west wall, in the main entry
area, which meets it perpendicularly.
This opening serves to
intensify the meeting of the'se walls that run perpendicular
to one another as well as challenge the reading of the wall
as a continuous surface.
It also marks the change in roof
level between the double height gallery space and the main
entry area by having the opening run from floor to ceiling.
The dimension of this opening matches the thickness of the
concrete wall, making one more conscious of the role this
opening plays which is to introduce light from the outside
of this wall while marking the coming together of two separate
events.
Scarpa introduces diffused light in a similar manner by
placing glass block in an irregular pattern in the sandstone
block infill wall..
(Fig. #51)
The puncturing of this wall
again challenges it as a continuous surface while making one
.aware of the dimensionality of the sandstone block, as well
as'bringing light in diffusely.
Fig. 37 Opening running
from floor to ceiling which
marks the meeting of the
south wall of the double
height gallery space and
the west wall appears on the
right. Roof level change
is marked by a series of
openings.
The meeting of the pre-existing north plaster wall and
Scarpa's reinforced concrete north wall (of the double height
gallery space) is articulated by another skinny opening running
from floor to ceiling.
(Fig. #38)
This break is not filled
with glass because on the other side of this wall, a pre-existing small scale building has been converted to storage space
for the remainder of Canova's work not shown in the main
gallery.
The break however, visually connects this extra
room to the main gallery without allowing one to actually enter
into it.
Another type of break, which should actually be called
a buffer space, occurs within the column wall where the glass
is infilled.
Rather than having the glass framing run con-
tinuously between the fourth and fifth steel columns, Scarpa
separates the frame from the fourth column with a plane of
glass about 6 inches wide.
(Fig. #51)
The conventional
treatment of this condition would be to frame the entire
length between both columns to demonstrate the possibility
of infilling a piece of glass of that dimension without a seam
or joint.
However, Scarpa, by pulling the frame away from
the column and filling the space between with glass, seems
to expose the independence of the frame, accenting its role
Fig. 38, Level change from
main entry area to the
trapezoidal gallery space
below.
as a frame rather than diminishing it,
would
have done.
as most modern architects
The space between is a buffer space because
it serves to accentuate the independence of the column and
-
the frame as separate elements.
The gesture of separating elements in order to preserve
their identity as separate things occurs on many scales, as
was seen in the Querini Stampalia Library and as occurs within
the addition to the Canova Gallery.
The zone between the
addition and the basilica is one scale of buffer space, while
the break between walls, and the break between the glass
frame and column illustrate smaller scales of the same kind
of condition,
The composition of level changes within the addition not
only serve to make one conscious of the topographical change
of the ground outside the museum, but they also represent
a subtle negotiation between the basilica and the addition.
The topographical change is amplified by the incorporation
of a level change from the entry foyer to the main entry area
of the addition.
(Fig. #55)
This change is gradual because
rather than simply putting two steps up to this higher level
change (from the uniform level of the foyer and basilica)
Scarpa terraced the space between this higher platform and the
basilica; the terrace serving as one of the steps up to the
platform.
The terrace which unites the basilica wall and the
platform serves as another kind of buffer space underlining
the distinction of this platform (which if further defined by
a raised moulding similar to the one found in the Querini
Stampalia Library around its raised platform) and the basilica
wall.
Fig. 39
Lower level
terrace integrates level
changes between basilica
and main entry area, main
entry area and trapezoid
gallery space and trapezoid
gallery space and level
of outside passage way.
This lower level or terrace (between the platform and
the basilica wall) turns the corner (Fig. #39) where it
.runs into the glass wall that cuts the passage-way between the
basilica and addition in half.
This turning serves to accentuate
the area of this higher level as a separate kind of space as
well as serve as further terracing from this higher level
down to the south wall.
This skinny L shaped lower level
serves as two buffer spaces: one which negotiates the change
69
in level from the foyer to the platform and one which negotiates
the change in level from this platform to the lower level of
the trapezoidal area which begins where the glass infill begins
)L
. .
.
...
..
. . .
. . . ..
in the column wall.
The effect of these level changes with
the addition of the double height gallery space is the creation
of three separately defined spaces: the main entry area, the
double height gallery space, and the lower narrow trapezoid.
(Fig. #40)
Fig 40 Three separately
defined spaces.
The moulding around each of these level changes
(broken only by the interruption of steps between levels) further
accentuates the reading of these level changes as separate
spaces.
The raising of the roof level in the double height
gallery space defines this space as being separate though the
change in level from the main entry area to this double height
gallery space is minimal: about two inches.
(Fig. #50)
The change in roof level reflects the ground level changes
(with the exception of the change in roof level from the double
height gallery space to the main entry area).
Where the buffer
space or lower level between the level of the main entry area
and the level of the lower trapezoid occurs, the roof changes
level.
(Fig. #52)
This change is articulated, as we've dis-
cussed before, by three dimensional cutouts which because of
their three dimensional quality, give a direction which is up
Fig. 41
Edge condition
and out, which contrasts to the change in level below, which
of cubic double height
space is challenged
is down and southward.
with use of 3-D windows.
The natural straight axis7 that might have been developed
Other openings in the roo-f
reflect other edge conditions. from the north to the south wall is broken by the location of
70
steps on the west side.
The change in direction found in the
west reinforced concrete wall (where it skews--running southeast
rather than simply south) conforms to the site boundary.
road lines the west wall of the addition.
A
However, by locating
the steps on the west edge, where this wall had to skew, Scarpa
consciously seemed to be aware of the closure he was creating
by making this circulation path line this skewed wall effectively
This is further accentuated
creating closure on the other side.
by lining the higher level of the terrace, between the mainentry area and the lower trapezoid, with a raised moulding.
(Fig. #39)
This moulding turns the corner where the higher
level of this terrace extends along the column wall (creating
a difference in level between the trapezoid floor level and the
framing of the glass wall infill).
The impact of this L
shaped moulding is the suggestion of closure, as if the area
east of the steps were literally carved out of the building.
It also further accentuates the notion of a topographical
change occurring within the building.
The level of the passage-
way between the column wall and basilica wall (outside) is.
significant because it is the same level as the basilica floor.
This raised terrace level that also extends along
the column wall until the sandstone block infill begins, serves
to further accentuate the difference between levels and also
Interior of double
Fig. 43
height gallery space: inverte'd becomes a three dimensional buffer space (much as the raised
west windows are hung.
platform in the Querini Stampalia Library became a public
buffer between the canal and the lecture hall).
Rather than
71
creating a single directional transition between the lower
level of the trapezoidal gallery space and the level of the
outside passageway by graduating levels from the lower floor
level up to the level of the passage, Scarpa makes this change
reciprocal by virtue of raising the connection between these
two levels.
In this way direction is generated from the raised.
level in between to either the lower level of the gallery or
the lower level of the outside passage.
The raising of this
connection also serves to distinguish it as a separate event.
Scarpa's identification with Wright is more evident in
the addition to the Canova Gallery than in many of his other
works with the exception of the Venezuela Pavilion in the 1954
Biennale in Venice and the Tempietto in the Cemetary BrionVega
which is very,.reminiscent of Unity Church in Oak Park, Illinois.
The addition to the Canova Gallery takes up much of Wright's
objectives: the destruction of "box-like" spaces, the creation
of a continuity between inside and outside,- and the identificaFig. 42 Unity Temple, Oak.
Park, Illinois, Frank Lloyd
Wright.
tion of building with ground.
The rectilinearity of the double
height gallery space, its cube-like dimensions and the cutting
away of its corners is particularly reminiscent of Wright.
(See Fig. #42, Unity Temple, Oak Park, Illinois)
Scarpa
literally cut into the corners of the double height gallery
space on the west side, however where Wright would have treated
all corners uniformly, Scarpa differentiated the west side
from the east side by using two different window types, both
of which cut the corners but two read positively, and two read 72
negatively.
Both develop a continuity by creating spaces that flow
together, however Scarpa differentiates these spaces at the
same time.
The result is what was discussed earlier, a reci-
procal continuity between spaces that allows one to read each
space separately while still perceiving each as part of a
whole unified space.
The use of a collage of materials and the
collaging of three dimensional space while at the same time
using devices that create a sequential development between
spaces and materials results in multiple readings of spaces
and parts.
One is made aware of the integrity of each separate
element and, at the same time, the role each part plays in
the unification of the whole.
It is the relationships developed
between these parts, however, that allows this simultaneity of
reading.
This particular kind of negotiation, for lack of a
better description, that Scarpa handles uniquely, was begun to
be discussed in the Querini Stampalia Library and now in the
Possagno addition, however the parallels between both projects
need to be discussed.
Section through
Fig. 44
the level of the Canova
Memorial down to the level
of the addition.
74
A
* i
II
2
Fig. 45 Plan of the basilica, surrounding buildings and the addition.
Fig. 46 Axonometric view of the west side of the basilica an'd addition
76
Fig. 47 Section.
77
REINFORCED CONCRETE
-GASELLO
DI CALCE
PIETRA DI AURISINA
(STONE)
ICONCRETE
Fig.
48
Section.
(PLASTERI
SLAB
Fig. 49 Detail of section.
|Reinforced concrete
Column wall
I Beam
Stone infill,
1
Stone slab
Concrete slab
''I'.
~,,r' I
I
-
I
/
/-
'II
'Ii
I80
Fig.50
reinorce
conretewall
etwen
elatonsip bsilca
wll
doted),colmn
allandwes
Fig. 51
Axonometric showing relationship of column to basilica wall and
level changes.
p. -
/
-.1
*~1
I.
'I
/
I
/
I
/
/
'1
I'~
/
**1
-M A
ft77
Fig. 52 Buffer space (between basilica wall and column wall) is cut 0in
half by a glass wall.
82
/
/
Ii'
~ammS...,
I.
****
****4/
Fig. 53
Roof line is continually broken with openings that reflect
events below.
83
Fig.
54 exterior view of inverted west window and section cut.
84
Fig.
55
Uniform floor
level of the basilica in relationship
to the level changes
within the addition.
Grey signifies 0
grade level.
85
PERSONAL HISTORY
Carlo Scarpa was born in Venice on June 2, 1906, and
entered the University of Venice about 1923 to study architecture.
He entered school when the University of Venice had
been undergoing frequent dramatic changes; the Art Nouveau had
been eclipsed by Futurism which in turn was finally ousted
after World War I by a renewed Classicism and academic monumentalism having found its justification in a national historicism.
Certainly the Futurist intervention paved the way for the
break from the Art Nouveau, which had never really established
itself in Venice and allowed this renewed neo-classicism to
co-exist with the rising rationalism.
Manlio Brusatin in
Controspazio, 1972 "Carlo Scarpa, Architetto Veneziano," suggests
remaining reminders of the Art Nouveau when Scarpa entered
school as he mentions that though Scarpa admittedly contended
with the renewed interest in ancient architecture, his love of
design and ornament generated curiosity in the Viennese
Secessionist movement and Henry Van de Velde.
Secondly,
Vittorio Gregotti mentions in New Directions in Italian
Architecture, that "as early as 1919, Giovanni Greppi had
designed a building in the Via Statute in Milan which was
strictly derived from the Austrian Seccionsstil" and "before
1925, the renewal movement rediscovered baroque architecture,
finding in it a style whose tormented, complex forms were
suited to modern complexity as well as the value of a verbal
86
architecture; it also gave rise to timid imitations of the
Style Viennese Secession."
Whether these strains were present
at the University of Venice is secondary to the fact that
Scarpa delighted in the Viennese Secessionists and outspokenly
tolerated the favored historicism, whose roots were more political than theoretical.
With the rise of Mussolini, Marcello
Piacentini asserted in Architecture and the Decorative Arts
(1921) "After the great war the people threw themselves into
an Architecture of a new style rejecting rationalism and finding
a free style--turning towards ancient architecture--this revision
of our greatness has strengthened us."
This suggests that
though rationalism was developing, it was not embraced until
much later, when it seems to have successfully vied with this
national historicism and assumed the support of the fascismo.
According to Vittorio Gregotti, it was not until 1926 that
Group 7 and Italian Rationalism was founded. In the magazine
La Rassegna Italiana (1926) the following quote appears, "The
hallmark of the earlier avante-garde was a contrived impetus
and a vain destructive fury, mingling good and bad elements:
the hallmark of today's youth is a desire for lucidity and
wisdom
.
.
.
This must be clear .
.
. We do not intend to
break with tradition; tradition transforms itself, and takes
on new aspects beneath which only a few can recognize it.
The new architecture, the true architecture, should be the
result of a close association between logic and rationality .
All of which should illustrate the temporal nature of each of
.
87
these schools of thought, overlapping at times rather than
existing as single is6lated events.
Carlo Scarpa spent about two years at the University of
Venice, during which time he was perceived to be a facile
designer and talented water colorist.
In addition to his pro-
pensity for the Art Nouveau, Manlio Brusatin says of him "it
remained to the classicist and Palladio to reveal the true
motives of Architecture and furnished him with a lively
attention to artistic things and objects."
As he said in my
interview with him on September 5, 1978, "One of my great sources
has been Palladio."
When as a student he was asked to design
a new viaduct for Venice, he was asked to the leave the University for design indulgences and never received a formal degree
in Architecture.
A fact which always undermined his confidence
as an architect; the Italian culture putting so much emphasis
on the credibility found with a degree.
The lengthy article on Carlo Scarpa by Manlio Brusatin
in Controspazio claims that Scarpa turned to the craft of glass
blowing for twenty years, after leaving school, only flirting
with architectural design in 1932-3 in a competition with the
Engineer Piamonti for the design of a new bridge at the Academia
of Venice.
However, the chronology of his life and career
printed in the Space Design issue 1977 challenges this suggesting further contact with the University of Venice when he became
the assistant to Professor Guido Cirilli at the University
in 1926.
According to this chronology, he was involved
88
in Murano as a glass-blower in 1938.
These. projects include:
the interior of a glassware shop in Florence, the interior of
a pastry shop in Venice and the -interior of a house in Venice.
Whatever is true, his decision to become a glass blower should
be seen, according to Brusatin, as a consciously responsible
choice.
His distaste for the corporate nature and anti-cultural
tendencies of the profession were as much a reason for his
escape into the craft of glass blowing as his distaste for the
-new political regime and its contradictions.12
Brusatin does
not mention the architectural projects Scarpa was involved
in simultaneous to this glass blowing period.
These projects
include: a competition for the town planning of Mestre, a
project for the Lido Airport in Venice, a project for an
apartment in Cortina, the restoration of Ca Foscari in Venice,
a project for small apartments in Venice, the Tomb in the
Cemetary of San Michele in Venice, all of which, except for the
tomb and restoration of Ca Foscari, went unrealized.
He also
engaged in furniture design which showed more of the infiltrating ideas of rationalism and the School of Darmstadt.1 3
This glass blowing period is significant, Scarpa said,
in terms of his performance as a designer because it presented
the chance to do a few things well, with measured precision,
patience and the passion of a craftsman, as opposed to the level
of control one would have had designing buildings for the fascists.
12.
13.
M. Brusatin, "Carlo Scarpa, Architetto Veneziano," Controspazio 1972 p. 6
89
Ibid p. 7
The designs he overlaid on his glasses are cubistic, recalling
themes by Leger and Braque. This might seem a generic inclination if the work of Martini, a Venetian sculptor who befriended
Scarpa, did not show similar inclinations. Brusatin compares
the art of glass blowing and the obvious influence it must
have had in his later architectural work where water and glass
are repeatedly introduced as themes; at any rate, his glass
vases identify him as part of a Venetian culture where glass,
stone and water prevail as material.
Scarpa had been teaching at the University of Venice for
some time before he recently died. The number of years is
ambiguous, the Controspazio article saying forty-six and the
Space Design chronology not mentioning his beginnings as a full
professor of architecture, but noting his assistantship to
This is odd, because he did not complete
his formal degree, as he told me, others have' told me and as
the Controspazio article says. To begin an assistantship one
year after being asked to leave is confusing. It is important
Cirilli in 1926.
though to know of his teaching years, as well as events within
the University of Venice, because it is apparently as a teacher
that he finds an interest in Wright, one of his most significant influences.
Bruno Zevi began teaching at the University of Venice as
a Historian in 1948. His interest in Venice was clearly that
of an ambitious polemicist looking for the grounds to cultivate
his own interest in organic architecture as found in Wright.
90
He hoped to organize an academy of sorts and perceived that
the University of Venice had only been peripherally involved
with rationalism and the fascists.
With the removal of
Cirilli, Zevi felt there was much room for experimentation
and felt he would be able to re-awaken latent sensitivities
for naturalism in the remaining old guard who had founded
themselves in the Art Nouveau.
People like Guido Costante
Sullam, who had earlier demonstrated so much interest in the
Art Nouveau, found this new climate and new men like Scarpa
particularly exciting because it was in revolt against the current
architecture and found himself open to the exploration of these
new ideas.
The sensational impact of Wright's work preceded
Zevi's entrance at the University of Venice when in 1945
Zevi furnished photographic material of Wright's work which
was printed in two publications of the magazine METRON.
The
effect of these publications became the impetus for the organization of the Associazione per Architettura Organica (APAO).
The works having particular interest for Scarpa were Wright's
Kaufmann house, Unity Temple, Midway Gardens, the Imperial
Hotel in Tokyo, and the Hollyhock house in Los Angeles.
Scarpa's Wrightian period (1945-57) is a nub between
important architectural periods in Italy.
Scarpa devoted
much time to developing this interest in Wright, particularly
in his students and took them to the United States to see his
work in person.
14.
Ibid p. 9
Among these students was Angelo Masieri,
whose family commissioned Wright to design a home for architectural students on the Grand Canal in Venice to be built on
the site of a small house they owned.
The controversy that
resulted in Venice was over the issue of inserting a modern
building in the fabric of Venice.
The issue was exaggerrated
by the press who claimed that Wright was building a skyscraper
on the Grand Canal, which was untrue.
The project proposed
would not have seriously affected the fabric of Venice.
However, it seems political maneuvering from high financial
positions manipulated the story enough to provoke general
outrage.
Antonio Ciderna led the movement against architec-
tural intervention in historic centers.
In this case he was
especially trying to resist precedent being set, which he felt
would unleash more brazen talent than Wright.
The final
result was the rejection of Wright's scheme in favor of preserving the small house and Carlo Scarpa was later in 1970
given the responsibility.
When Wright visited Italy, on the occasion of this
Masieri memorial project in 1951 Wright was instantly taken
with Venice and with Carlo Scarpa and his vases.
However,
according to Brusatin, the occasion of the Masieri controversy
was enough impetus for the University to foreclose on a developing interest in Wright and foreign architects.
After this Wrightian period, the University of Venice fell
into a mild reformism.
Brusatin says that the isolationism
that had served to protect the new organic movement at Venice
and yield relatively superior work, became the reason it col- 92
The
lapsed into oblivion after this Wrightian period ended.
faculty became conservative, and people like Carlo Scarpa
estranged themselves.
A student political movement developed,
but was ineffectual, the result of which was a general
reconciliation to this conservatism.
The students, during
this revolt against this reformism, were unimaginative.
Instead of exploring the inherent contradictions, as Faculty
and students were doing in Florence and Milan, they resigned
themselves to opportunism.
Brusatin ends this discussion
about the University of Venice by saying that this result
"coincided paradoxically with Scarpa who, with calculated irony,
said, at a meeting of the Movement of Studies for Architecture
(MSA), that the perfect Architecture School would need
Wright for Composition, Le Corbusier for Urban Studies,
Aalto for interior design, Mies van der Rohe for Technology
and Structures, and Samona (who had earlier left Venice when
Zevi entered) as director. 1 5
After his design for a tomb for the Rizzo Cemetary of
San Michele in Venice Scarpa between the years of 1942-47 was
involved with two projects: an arrangement for "il Cavallino,"
a Gallery for Modern Art in Venice which was realized, and a
project for a cinema in Treviso which went unrealized.
In
1947 he becomes involved with a significant work because of
the scale and complexity of the problem: a plan for an apartment house with a restaurant and shops integrated
15.
Ibid p. 15
into the
9
complex on the Piazza Spalato in Padua.
The significance of
this undertaking is found in the incorporation of diverse
functions and technologies together in one project, a truly
urban problem which unfortunately went unrealized.
projects include:
Other
Office of the Transadriatic Society in
Venice--unrealized, the headquarters of the Catholic Bank in
Udine--unrealized, a design for a bus station in the Piazza
Mazzini in Padua--unrealized.
Brusatin makes note of Scarpa's
developing interest in Aalto and Paul Klee which he said are
clearly visible in his design for a cinema in Venice--unrealized.
He also suggests his incorporation of Wrightian geometry in
his design for a parish church in Venice and Wrightian accents
in the stone wall, but ventures further to say that the round
bell tower is more reminiscent of the Art Nouveau.
In 1949
his interior of a new office of the Gallery "il Cavallino" in
Venezia is realized.
In the same year he designs a preliminary
plan for an apartment house of four-room units in Padua.
Though
this project also went unrealized Brusatin makes note of an
influence from Kahn, who he says was also influenced by this
project which he later used in his project at Mill Creek in
1956.
Other unrealized projects include before 1950: a design
for the Guarnieri House in Venice, a plan for a four-storied
rental house in Belluno and the interior of the lobby of the
Danieli Hotel in Venice.
In 1950 a series of his projects
were completed and include: the arrangement of the exhibition
of publications on cinemas at the l0th-llth Festival of Cinema 94
in Venice, the remodeling of a store "alla Piavola de Franza"
in Venice--demolished, the interior for a bookstore "Ferdinando
Ongania"--demolished, and the Pavilion for Publications on
art of the Gallery "il Cavallino at the 25th International
Biennale in Venice which still stands.
This pavilion is re-,
markably reminiscent of the school at Taliesin.
The magazine
METRON promoted this pavilion in several of its issues saying
Scarpa was the best architect in Venice; "this pavilion will
not be remembered in history but will be remembered as an
act of courage."1 6
Other works before his next significant
project include: a preliminary plan for the Bortolatto house
in Udine--unrealized, the arrangement for the exhibition "B. B.
Tiepolo" at the 1951 International.Biennale of art in Venezia-realized, an arrangement for the Exhibition "Graphic Works by
Toulouse-Lautrec" at the Palazzo Napoleonico, furnishings for
the main rooms of the Academy Gallery in Venice--realized,
remodelling of the first floor of the Correr Museum in Venice-realized, restoration of the National Gallery of Sicily in
Palermo, arrangement for the exhibition "Art of Ancient China"
in
the Palazzo Ducale in Venice, interior of the-"Academy
Gallery" in Venice, and in 1954 the Venezuela Pavilion at the
international Biennale of Art in Venice which still stands.
This project is one of his more noted works because of the
remarkable likeness to Wright's work, seen especially in
his treatment of the corners.
16.
B. Zevi,
He takes up much of this
"Padiglione del Libro
. . ." in METRON,
#38,
1950 95
Wrightian vocabulary again in his project in La Spezia, the
Gypsoteca in Possagno which will be looked at in.detail later
on, and in the project for the reconstruction of the Carlo
Feilice-: Theater in Genoa.
Brusatin compares his residential
work with that of his commercial and public work, saying that
it is in his residential work that he manages to balance
the influences from the Secessionists, particularly Olbrich,
with Adolf Loos and his influences from graphic artists such
as Paul Klee and Piet Mondrian.
However, the strongest
theme in his residential work is Wright.
The list of works
until his next significant series of significant works include:
the remodelling of six rooms of the Uffizi Gallery in Florence
--realized, the remodelling of the office of Scatturin in
Venice, the Veritti House in Udine--realized, the arrangement
for the exhibition "Piet Mondrian" at the Gallery of Art in
Rome--realized, a competition for the Colony of Olivetti in
Ivrea, the remodelling of "Ca 'Foscari" in Venice--realized
and in 1956 to 57 the extension of the showroom for Gypsography in Possagno--realized,
which will be discussed later.
The other work discussed in detail will be the Restoration
of the ground floor and courtyard of the Querini Stampalia
Library in Venice in 1961-3. The following list includes
the rest of his work between the years 1958 to 1977 (taken from
the chronology printed in Space Design 1977).
1958
Arrangement for the exhibition "from Altichiero to
Pisanello" in the Castelvecchio in Verona--realized
-
Interior of the Italian Pavilion-Biennale in Venezia-realized
-
Arrangement for the exhibition "murano Glassware,"
Salviati & Co., Venezia-
1959
realized
Arrangement for the exhibition "Vitality in Art,"
Palazzo Grassi, Venezia--realized
1960
Remodelling of the 2nd Floor of the Correr Museum,
Verona--realized
-
Arrangement for the exhibition "Erich Mendelsohn"-Biennale in Venezia--realized
1961
Arrangement for the exhibition "The Sense of Colour
and the Mastery of Water," Expo Italia '61, Veneto
Pavilion, Torino
-
1961-3
Gavina Shop, Bologna--realized
Restoration of the Querini Stampalia Library, Venezia-realized
1962
Arrangement for the exhibtion "Cima da Conegliano,"
Treviso
1962-3
Project for remodeling of the Italian Pavilion and its
Biennale in Venezia--realized
1963
Cassina House, Ronco di Carimate--unrealized
1963
-
Arrangement of Revoltella Museum in Trieste--realized
Preliminary plan for the reconstruction of Carlo Feilice
Theater in Genoa
1964
Restoration and rearrangement of the Castelvecchio
Museum in Verona--realized
-
Arrangement for the exhibition "Giacomo Manzu" Palazzo
Napoleonico in Venezia
1964-5
Project for a small apartment house on the Grand Canal
in Venice--unrealized
1964-8
Remodelling of the Zentner House in Zurich--realized
1966
Project for the Piazza del Duomo in Modena--unrealized
-
Project for the entrance to the Venice Institute
University of Architecture, Venezia--realized
-
Exhibition "Architecture of Museum," Museum of Modern
Art, New York--realized
1967
Arrangement for the Exhibition "The Poem" Italian
Pavilion '67, Montreal
-
Arrangement for the exhibition "Arturo Martini" in
Treviso
1968
Arrangement for the exhibition "Pursuit of New Structures" (personal exhibition of Scarpa, Louis Kahn,
Paul Rudolph, Franco Albini) 34th International
Biennale of Art, Venezia
98
1969
Arrangement for the Exhibition "the Drawings of E.
Mendelsohn" U. of Cal. at Berkeley
-
Arrangement for the exhibition "Frescoes from Florence"
Aiward Gallery in London
-
Project for the Santini House in Lucca--unrealized
-
Competition for the Municipal Theater in Vicenza
1970-2
Cemetary Brion-Vega in San Vito--realized
1970
Arrangement for the exhibition "G. Morandi" The
Royal Academy in London
-
Masieri Memorial, Students Library and Dwelling,
Venezia--unrealized
1972
-
Project for Roth House in Asolo--unrealized
Plan for the Lupi House near Vicenza
Exhibition "great Drawings from the Collection" the
Heinz Gallery in London
1973
-
Project for the Restaurant Fini in Modena--unrealized
Project for the annex of the Querini Stampalia Library
in Venezia--unrealized
1973-5
People's Mutual Bank in Verona--under construction
1974
Project for the National Museum (under construction in
Messina)
-
Arrangement for the exhibition "Gino Rossi" Treviso
1974
Annex to the "Villa Matteazzi-Chiesa" Venezia--realized
1975
Monument to the Memory of the Sufferers of the '72
Terrorist Outrage, Brescio--realized
1975-6
Reconstruction and extension of the former Convent of
San Sebastiano, the Faculty of Literature and Philosophy of Venice University in Venezia--realized
1975-7
Project for the preservation of the ruins of ancient
roman houses in Feltre--unrealized
1976
Project for Picasso Museum, Paris--unrealized
1977
Project for a branch of the Antonia Bank in Monselice-unrealized
-
Weekend House for three families in Belluno--unrealized
-
Bardolino House (under construction)
Scarpa's attention to detail undoubtedly qualified him
for the number of exhibition arrangements he did throughout
his career.
Brusatin suggests this devotion to craft was
developed as a glassblower where his sense of quality found
in material was heightened.
However, he also suggests that
this endeavor served finally to limit his ability as an architect; whose attitude towards modern industry was that it produced bad architecture.
quality, however costly.
This passion yields work of high
However, it can be thus understood
that when he does use modern prefabricated parts, they becomeloo
as rare as his hand crafted components by the way in which they
are incorporated into his design; often it is tongue-in-cheek.
This willful escape from mass production has caused people
like Manfredo Tafuri to say of him "his is an ideology of architecture as craftsmanship, oriented towards the absorption of
unskilled labor, spread out in competing enterprises with a low
technological level . . . an obsession with reviving building
as the project of 'manual' techniques, where physical and.
linguistic materials undergo manipulations which bend, deform
and torment them.
The expressionism resides in the contra-
diction, experienced personally, between a lack of power and
know how to make architecture something other than an artisan's
profession still rich in 'peasant' values and an awareness
of the progressive disappearance of the objective conditions
which permitted this indulgence. . . . his scale of inter-
vention leads to a poetry of objects, rich in formalistic
complacency and devoid of ideological trauma. Scarpa has
explored a syntax which eludes any repetition and which allows
him to put forward the problem of 'style' as the ultimate
testimony of a practice involving formal science and imagination." 1 7
Scarpa, "humbly," said of his work that the fact
he is not copied well is testimony to the fact that he is not
a great architect.
Yet, in 1972 Carlo Scarpa became the
Director of the School of Architecture at the University of
Venice.
17.
M. Tafuri, L'Architecture D'Aujourd'hui, 1975 Sept-Oct #181101
Visit to Carlo Scarpa's Studio (Sept, 11, 1978)
Scarpa's studio in Vicenza is the basement of a house
which, though separate, is part of the larger Villa Valmarana
which sits on the hill overlooking Vicenza.
He and his wife
shared, until his death, the upper floors as their private
residence.
Memories of his studio are filled with cold and dampness,
even though I was there at the end of the summer when the temperature ranges between 68-70 degrees.
My initial discomfort,
with the cold and my nervousness for what I would not be able
to say, was quickly overtaken by good feeling.
The respect
his students and his employees have for him was, practically
speaking, a spectacle.
There was definitely the sense of
"maestro-disciple" accord, for even though his private residence
was directly above when he entered the room I felt as though
he were holding court.
We talked about Painting and Sculpture, as he said "Art
History, Painting and Sculpture are more important to me than
architecure."
He talked about liking to do things well,
usually picking up a piece of stray material from one of his
projects when he spoke, which completely litter his studio,
or sketching the idea he was creating with words to reinforce
it graphically for himself.
He said, "I would rather be the
painter of the small painting on the bottom of the altar than
be the grand maestro of the center masterpiece."
He talked
102
. about his academic training, complaining of its provincialism
and conservatism and how it was necessary to repudiate all he
had been taught in order to learn about Frank Lloyd Wright
and Le Corbusier, but emphasizing all the while that his
greatest love and resource was painting.
He talked a little about the Cemetary BrionVega, his
most recent finished and published work.
He said of it "I
wanted to create a place to come to celebrate life, and therefore
the entire plan is symbolic."
Visiting the cemetary, one
enters through the center of the old cemetary (Square in plan)
passing through an archway that delivers one in the center of
the upper arm of an upside down L shaped plan.
This point is
supposed to be significant because immediately on the right
is a large pool of water (meant to symbolize the beginning
of life before birth).
Immediately on the left, at the corner
of this L, is the dual sarcophagus--meant for the couple
Brion-Vega and intended to symbolize the material end of
life.
The duality of this sarcophagus was'consciously
designed to maintain the dialogue this couple had in life;
Turning the corner from the Sarcophagus, one finds the Tempietto
(a small church meant to symbolize eternal life).
The water
surrounding this tempietto is intended to mean the beginning
and end at once--or the infinite.
The point of entrance
then is appropriate placed between the beginning and end of
a lifetime.
This conception is quite two dimensional and
conceptual in terms of placement and recalls for me Scarpa's 103
persistent references to painting--perceiving the plan as a
very two dimensional composition.
This challenges Arata
Isozaki's statement about Scarpa's "leading the collection of
parts to form the whole."
Another concern he spoke about was his attempt to reflect
the essence of the people or place for which he was designing.
For example, in Possagno, which I had just visited, he said
he saw the problem of lighting Canova's sculpture and the
topographical situation in Possagno as the two basic concerns
he had.
The double height room was intended to house a giant
statue of Theseus by Canova. Bit his response to Canova's
work was in trying to get at lightness.
At Bardolino, he said,
the house was intended to reflect the nonchalance of its
owners.
The cemetary of Brion-Vega was strictly ordered
according to a module of eleven.
All dimensions are some
combination of eleven--halved or multiplied (5.5, 11, 22, 33,
44, 55, etc.).
He spoke at some length about using a
module (that was the first time he had, and only did because
he was forced to), feeling it had been a wonderful constraint
and wanted to use one again in future design.
He especially
felt the number eleven was helpful as he said "one never
loses the equilibrium with eleven."
His working process is interesting.
I found, while
looking through his drawings, no evidence of working drawings.
His process is ongoing, rather than finishing a design with
a complete set of finished and working drawings.
The design
104
stage is simultaneous to building; drawings are relatively
schematic and beautifully colored with pencil indicating different materials.
A drawing is then given to his assistant,
an architect and engineer, who then proceeds to convert it to
a scaled working drawing, which is then turned over to the
crew.
I was' intrigued to find, though the Bardolino house was
still under construction, Pino Tomasi, his assistant, converting
some of Scarpa's drawings to more finished and detailed working
drawings.
Finally, these working drawings are rarely kept.
I found drawings of the Castelvecchio, the Bardolino House,
the Bank in Verona and the Cemetary Brion-Vega in various
drawers all over his studio, unassembled and all representing
different phases of design.
Some were sketches, some were
detailed finished drawings, others were beautifully colored
but precise schematic drawings representing certain details
which repeated throughout the project it represented.
I was
told the drawings of the rest of his work were lost, or being
kept in London.
Scarpa seemed to be generally unconcerned
about any of this.
I questioned some of his students about him and his relative position at the University of Venice.
Merine Picco said
that most students and faculty members misunderstood Scarpa.
His tendency to isolate hiself, which manifested itself in
his earlier years during his glass blowing period, was
perceived as a weakness.
She said the "eccentricity" they
see in his design is simply another manifestation of this
105
hermeticism.
Despite such objectivity, her reverence for Carlo
Scarpa seemed to be unbridled, saying, "I am here to do my
thesis with him; I do not expect to be able to emulate his
talent, he is too great, but anything I might learn from
him while I am here will make me happy."
I asked her what
she thought about the influence Scarpa had from Frank Lloyd
Wright, and the differences between them.
She said, "Wright
draws the building up from the ground; it is an extension of
the earth, while Scarpa works from the top of the building
to the ground.
Both respect the ground and use it as part of
the whole conception, but their beginning is quite different."
Another student said, "I think Scarpa misinterpreted Wright
in the way Wright sees nature; Scarpa cuts into nature--a very
Italian attitude."
Scarpa's final words to me were meant to discourage anyone
wanting to take him literally. His suggestion was to "look at
my work as if I am dead."
106
CONCLUSION
The attitude that I've attempted to characterize,
in the
description of the Querini Stampalia Library and the Possagno
Museum is concerned with developing a vocabulary that celebrates
junctures in built form.
This is largely achieved through a
sophisticated juxtaposition of different elements, spaces,
materials and volumes, that in the manner of juxtaposition
develops three dimensional relationships between these elements,
etc., that effect a special kind of juncture between them.
The quality of these junctures is unique because it allows
the integrity of different elements be acknowledged while
being joined. The attitude is significant not only because
it reflects the culture in which Scarpa took part (a classical
tradition, certain aspects of modernism, and a cultural
tradition founded in historical layering), but because the art
of resolving differences between building fabrics, materials,
style, etc., has increasingly become an important issue.
Scarpa cannot alone be credited with identifying this concern;
he was born in a city where the building fabric has been
layered for centuries, and the resolution between new and old
has traditionally been a concern. But, Scarpa's manner of
achieving resolution between conflicting traditions, betrays
a broader architectural attitude.
I've used the Querini Stampalia Library to graphically
illustrate this interest in resolving stylistic differences. 107
The mediation developed between the new and the old illustrates,
in the Library, an interest in generating an active dialogue
that joins the elements or spaces that are in juxtaposition to
one another, by virtue of creating a third component in between
that, because of its separate identity, reinforces the separateness of elements or spaces that are being joined and simultaneously joins them.
For instance, the space between the platform
of the library and the wall in the lobby, is large enough to
suggest that it is a separate condition between two elements,
and not simply left over space.
However, because it also
reinforces the separateness of the platform, as a new built
element, and the wall, as the old built-form, both the wall
and platform are then related to one another by virtue of this
separation.
The tension resulting between the two is what
should be called the negotiation of both.
However, had all
spaces between the platform and the walls, of the lobby,
been dimensionally uniform, the space between would merely
have defined the platform as a very separate element.
The
irregularity of these dimensions sets up a different kind of
articulation, which lets the platform jockey into a position
in relation to the wall.
The same is true of the level changes
between the platform and the lecture hall.
Had these level
changes been straight (like a series of steps) rather than
being irregular, the relationship between the platform and
the lecture hall would have been less ambiguous; straight
level changes would have served to underline their difference 108
as two separate events and the directional flow from one to the
other would have been one directional.
The irregularity of this
composition gives a simultaneity of reading.
It lets the
lecture hall floor flow up to the platform and also, at the
same time, lets the platform flow down to the lecture floor.
The irregularity suggests an inter-locking of a development
from the lecture floor to the platform and a development from
the platform to the lecture hall floor.
The quality of inter-
locking these directional flows is what makes this negotiation
a separate condition.
The same kind of condition can be seen in the Possagno
addition where level changes, from the entry foyer up the
main entry area of the addition, serve as a negotiation from
the foyer and basilica to the upper level of the main entry
area.
However, the location of the column wall inside this
main entry area, which clearly later on defines the east edge
of the addition, makes the actual beginning of the addition
less clear.
The area between the column wall and the basilica
wall, because of its lack of strict definition and the
suggestion of multiple possibilities (i.e., the beginning
would be the terrace-between the platform and.the basilica
wall, or it could be the step between the terrace and the platform, it could be the beginning of the articulated platform,
or it could be the column wall) becomes therefore, a dialogue
between parts that mediates the change between the basilica
and the addition.
Initially, the introduction of level changes109
seems to say that this new addition is doing something quite
different which on further inspection is true.
The relationship
developed between the new addition and the old then becomes
crucially important for their mutual co-existence.
The zone
in between that mediates this change becomes the crucial
factor in letting these two structures be separate and become
a whole.
However, the fact that the terrace between the platform
and the basilica wall turns the corner becoming another mediator
between the higher level of the main entry area and the lower
trapezoidal floor level illustrates an attitude towards design
that does not rest simply in relating the new to the old,
but one which is grounded in celebrating connections between
spaces, elements, and materials which reinforce the integrity
At the same time, Scarpa unifies the
of things being joined.
reading of the whole with devices that develop a continuity
between spaces (i.e., the reinforced concrete wall on the west
side of the addition renders the whole addition as a single unit).
The breakdown of inside to outside (the glass walls on the
south ends and the window treatment) in contrast to the very
deliberate edge definition (the west reinforced concrete wall)
set up themes that play off one another, resulting in a richer
set of multiple readings.
Likewise, the buffer spaces found in the Querini Stampalia
Library (the platform which buffers the change from the canal
to the Jecture hall and the lower space immediately outside
the lecture hall which
buffers the change from the hall to 110
the garden) act as mediators between different conditions.
They also serve to reinforce the reading of the hall as a
*very separate space.
The transparency of walls (beginning with
the screens between arches on the facade, the glass wall between
the middle front room and the lecture hall, and the glass wall
between the lecture hall and the garden) sets up a continuity
between these spaces and a breakdown of inside and outside.
In addition, the negotiation between these conflicting conditions
(the transparency/continuity versus the definition) is the
factor that allows them to work together to create this multiplicity of readings.
In the middle front room, the small
level changes between the front facade and the platform, and
the level changes plus the radiator between the platform and
the lecture hall operate as smaller scale mediators.
The
recession of the irregular glass wall from the outside column
line of the lecture hall is the same kind of smaller scale
mediator between the separateness of the lecture hall and
the area immediately outside.
The distinguishing objectives found in both projects that
together characterize Scarpa's generic attitude towards design
are difficult to articulate inasmuch as they often seem to be
contradictory.
But it is in these contradictions, that are
subtly resolved, that makes for the magic-like quality of his
design.
First of all, he breaks down the separation of inside versus
outside (exemplified by the use of a platform in the Library 111
that seems to bring the public-like quality of Venice into the
building as well as the recession of the doorway).
The breakdown
of inside versus outside is literally broken down in the
library with the use of glass walls that create a series of
transparent layers.- The use of glass walls in the Possagno
museum effects the same kind of reading suggesting outside
space coming in and reciprocally the suggestion of inside
space going out.
The relationship to outside landscape, within the interior,
is a theme developed in both projects.
The use of the platform
with interruptions running through the library to the garden,
which by itself is another artificial landscape recreates
the circuitous path-making found in Venice.
The incorporation
of level changes within the Possagno museum refers to the actual
slope of the ground outside.
The breakdown of continuity developed by devices such
as platforms, continuous wall material, mouldings, etc., is
accomplished by differentiating the very things that are being
joined.
So, one reads an element through its separate role and
also as part of a larger composition.
The difference in this
and the way Wright's components contribute to the reading of
the whole is the use of collage.
Scarpa deliberately juxtaposes
conflicting materials, surfaces, colors, etc., to achieve a
multiplicity of readings.
The spatial development, as a result,
is layered.
He breaks down the compartmentalization of rooms by
112
layering spaces.
For example, when entering the addition to
the Canova gallery, Scarpa deliberately avoids allowing you to
define where the new gallery begins.
Part of the entry seems
to be allied with the foyer, and part of it seems to be an
integral part of the addition.
One can read the zone between
the column wall and the basilica wall as part of the main
entry area, and also read it as something quite separate.
But the zone itself is further broken down, inside the addition,
through the use of levels that serve to define the edge of the
higher platform.
The series of columns falling on the inside
of this platform makes the part of the platform to the east
of the columns seem ambiguously as part of both:
and the main entry area.
the zone
I've called this reciprocal continuity
before.
Scarpa's use of mediators between spaces, elements and
materials has become quite redundant.
But what should be very
clear is the fact that a buffer is not restricted to one scale
but exists on as many as can be identified within one project.
It is this attitude towards juncture from the smallest scale
to the larger urban scale that illustrates a more conceptual
and generic attitude towards design.
From the more specific
negotiation between platform and lecture hall floor in the
library, to the joinery of the bridge railing outside the
library, to the larger level of the creation of different
zones that serve as mediators between inside and outside, to
the actual breakdown of outside public space to private space 113
within the building, it is clear that there is a range of
execution of the same kind of attitude.
Similarly, in the addi-
tion to the Canova Gallery, the juncture between floor levels,
the juncture between buildings, and the resolution of the
severity of the basilica with its surroundings with an addition
that mediates between the two, all represent the same objective.
This is to develop a vocabulary of relationships that negotiate
the juncture between necessarily or intentionally different
conditions by celebrating the juncture and making it a very
special event.
114
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Aloi, Roberto, Musei, Ulrico Hoepli, Milan Italy, 1962
2. Arslan, Edoardo, Gothic Architecture in Venice, Phaidon
Press, London 1971
3. Banham, Reyner, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age,
Praeger, NY, 1960
4. Bassi, Elena, Palazzi di Venezia, La Tamperia di Venezia
Editrice, 1976 Venice
5. Bassi, Elena, Antonio Canova a Possagno, Arti Grafiche
Longo e Zoppelli, Treviso, 1972
6. Benevolo, Leonardo, History of Modern Architecture, V. I
& II, MIT Press Cambridge
7. Bettini, G.
Milano 1960
"L'architettura di Carlo Scarpa," Zodiac #6,
8. Blijstra, R., Dutch Architecture After 1900, P. N. van
Kampan & Zoon, Amsterdam, 1966
9. Bottero, Maria, "Querini Stampalia Palace, Venice," World
Architecture #2 Viking Press, New York 1965
10. Bottero, M, "Carlo Scarpa il Veneziano" Architectural
Review, #2 London 1965
11. Brawne, M., "Object on View," The Architectural Review,
#753, London 1959
12. Brusatin, Manlio, "Carlo Scarpa Architetto Veneziano"
Controspazio Marzo-Aprile 1972, Milano, Italy
13. Bucarelli, P., "Mostra di Piet Mondrian a Roma," L'Archi-115
tettura; Cronache a Storia #17, Roma 1957
14. Cantacuzino, S., "Carlo Scarpa Architetto poeta,"
RIBA, London 1974
15. "Casa Veritti a Udine: 1960," Casabella Continuata 1254,
P.2-li Agosto 1961
16. Fanelli, Giovanni, Architettura Moderna in Olanda, Marchi
& Bertolli, Florence, 1968
17. Forsee, Aylesa, Frank Lloyd Wright: Rebel in Concrete,
Macrae Smith Co., Philadelphia, 1959
18. Gray, P., "Italia #61" The Observer, May 1961, London
19. Gregotti, Vittorio, New Directions in Italian Architecture,
George Braziller New York, 1968
20. Hagasawa, Aiko, "Carlo Scarpa," Space Design, 1977, Tokyo,
Japan
21. "Il Nuovo Negozio Olivetti," Domus #362, Milano, 1960
22. Jaffe, H. L. C., de Stijl 1917-31, Alec Tiranti Ltd.,
London 1956
23. Joly, P., "Scarpa, L'ornement est un crime," L'Oeil #233
24. Kaufmann, Edgar, An American Architecture, Horizon Press,
New York 1955
25. "L'Opera di Carlo Scarpa della Quadreria Correr in Venezia,"
Domus #388 pp. 23-4 March 1962
26. "L'Opera di Carlo Scarpa al Museo di Castelvecchio a
Verona" Domus #369 Milano 1960
27. Los, S., "Carlo Scarpa Architetto Poeta," Venezia_1967
28. Magagnato, L., "Castelvecchio restaurato" Comunedj Verona 116
1964
29. Magagnato, L. "Castelvecch-io, L'Agencement Modern d'un
Musee Ancien," L'Oeil 1121
30. Mazzariol, G., "Un 'Opera di Carlo Scarpa," Zodiac #13,
Milano 1964
31. Mazzariol, G., "Opere dell'architetto Carlo Scarpa,"
L'Architettura; Cronache e Storia, #3 Roma 1955
32. Mazzariol, G., "Un'Opera di Carlo Scarpa" il riordino di
un antico Palazzo Veneziano," Zodiac #13, Milan Italy
33. Mazzatti, G., "Catalogo della Mostra di Arturo Martini,"
Treviso 1967
34. Mieras, J. P. & Yerbury, F. R., Dutch Architecture of the
20th Century, Charles Scribners, 1926
35. "Negozio a Bologna," Domus V. 395, pp. 3-12 Ottobre 1962
36. "Opera di Carlo Scarpa della Quadreria Correr in Venezia"
Domus #388 pp. 23-24 March 1962
37. "Padiglione die Libri d'arte," Metron #38 Roma 1950
38. Pevsner, Nikolaus, Pioneers of Modern Design, Museum of
Modern.Art, 1949, New York
39. "Quattro Profetti per Venezia alla XXXVI Biennale" Domus
#515, Milano 1972
40. Ragghianti, C. L. "La Crosera de Piazza," Zodiac #84
Milano 1959
41. Richards, J. M, Rogatnick, A., "Venice: Problems and
Possibilities" Architectural Review, V. 149 May 1971
42. Santini, P. C. "Italia 61" Communita #90, Milano 1961
117
43. Santini, P. C., "Un'opera distrutta di Carlo Scarpa"
Zodiac #9, Milano 1962
44. Santini, P. C. "Il Nuovo Negozio di Carlo Scarpa aBologna" Zodiac #10 Milano 1962
45. Santini, P. C. "Il Restauro di Castelvecchio a Verona,"
Comunita #126, Milano, 1965
46. Santini, P. C. "Progetto per una casa a Ronco di Carimate"
Ottogono #2, Milano 1966
47. Santini, P. C. "Architettura per una tomba," Ottogono,
#26, Milano 1972
48. Sharp, Dennis, A Visual History of 20th Century Architecture,
New York Graphic Society Ltd. 1972
49. Solus, Locus, "Carlo Scarpa et le cimetiere de San Vito
d'Altivole" L'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui #181, Oct. 1975
50. Summerson, John, The Classical Language of Architecture,
MIT Press 1963, Cambridge
51. Tentori, Francesco, "Progetti Di Carlo Scarpa" Casabella
Continuata #222, Milan, Italy 1958
52. Tentori, F., "Un Padiglione di Carlo Scarpa alla Biennale
di Venezia," Casabella #212, Milano 1956
53. Tentori, F., "Profetti di Carlo Scarpa" Casabella #222,
Milano 1958
54. "The Museo Correr, Venice" Architectural Design V. 32, pp.
159-165 March 1962
55. "The Regional Prizes awarded by the Istituto Nazionale di
Architettura for 1964," L'Architettura; Cronache e
118
Storia V. 12 March 1966
56. "Ufficio telefonico pubblico a Venezia," Metron #45,
Roma 1952
57. "Una Villa Ricostrutta da un architetto poeta," Casa
Vogue November 1973
.58. "Un Negozio in Piazza San Marco a Venezia," L'Architettura:
Cronache e Storia, V. 5 March 1959
59. "Un Restauro Vissuto Comme Felice Storia Familiare,"
Casa Vogue October 1976
60. Zevi, B., "I Premi Nazionali di Architettura e Urbanistica
a Carlo Scarpa e Ludovico Quaroni," L'Architettura;
Cronache e Storia, #15, Roma 1957
61. Zevi, B., Cronache di Architettura #42 (V. I, II, III),
#425 (V. IV, VI), #733 (V. VII)
119